LAX vs SFO on the way to SYD
 

OK, so I'm finally looking at SYD tickets (from ORD) 1k SWU on UA... for a wedding in March. I see that right now it is cheaper to go thru SFO than LAX. I am wondering why. If I keep looking for fares, will I hopefully be able to fly thru LAX instead, and still have a ticket that is under $1200? I really want to avoid SFO if I can, but still get a good price on a ticket. Your thoughts?
Carol

Why would you want to choose LAX over SFO???

I doubt that you actually found a sub-$1200 W fare on either route. What you saw were probably K fares which are not upgradeable with a SWU.

I tried a few dates in March and the SWU- upgradeable fares are $1800+ (and M/H fares twice as much.

Fare codes S,T,K,L are not upgradeable with SWUs on international flights.

SFO no question about it!

"<i>I really want to avoid SFO if I can</i>"

I'd usually rather change planes to international at SFO than at LAX.

Just curious - what do you have against SFO?

Thanks for all those replies, everyone. I do not like going thru SFO, having nearly missed an on-going flight due to such slow security lines and waiting for bags! DH had an insignificant (expensive) pocket item taken from him, so we mailed it home rather than lose it completely!! We have vowed to avoid SFO... yes, I really do prefer LAX. Thank goodness we all have a right to our own opinions!

I have friends in Los Angeles with whom I could spend a long layover, sipping wine, eating dinner, driving the coast.. etc. That's an extra added advantage for me in LAX as well.

The less-than-$1200 fare came up when I put in my request for dates and an upgrade using SWU. Would it offer fares that are not upgradeable? Curious...

I'll have to look again. So, $1800 is bare minimum at this point. Hmmm...

I have time to think about it. I don't have to rush to book it right now.

Carol (posting from Lucerne Switzerland)

I would always pick SFO over LAX for connections, as I think the arrivals facilities, RCCs, etc., are nicer--but that's just my opinion. There probably isn't a huge amount of difference.

A couple of suggestions...there's a lot of discussion on flyertalk about which one is better for trips to Australia, which has a better chance of clearing, etc. I'm not sure there's a lot of consensus, but there is a lot of experience there; for example, some suggest day of the week is important. You'll have to do some searching to find those threads; here's one:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...fo-merged.html

Another thing, be careful with the one "direct" flight through LAX (I think) that uses the same flight number all the way from Sydney to Chicago. If you apply the SWU to the whole trip, both segments will have to have upgrade space for the upgrades to clear. Or, just apply the upgrade to the SYD-LAX portion. The domestic portion is on an A320 that doesn't have many first class seats. I used miles (not SWUs) to upgrade going to Australia a couple of years ago, and the only segment that never cleared was one of the segments between Chicago and LAX.

I haven't looked at "NC" availability to/from Australia in awhile, but United can be pretty stingy with it and may only release upgrades close to the day of travel. You might start by looking for any NC availability during the period you want to travel. I did one quick search for random dates in March and found nothing. Good luck.

Interesting advice by Airtraveler, since United considers both LAX and SFO to be hubs.

http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,1021,00.html

ms-go
Thanks for that flyer talk link. I read about 3 pages of it. Lots of good information there.

I'll be watching UA fares for a few weeks now, probably making my decision by late December.

Carol

ms_go. AirTraveler was obvioulsy advertising and it looks like the editors caught it early . . . .

SFO is the only way to go................

As stated in my OP, I will avoid SFO, if at all possible!

Sorry, to all of you who love that airport. I, personally, do not love it!!

Anyway, I appreciate all the information that resulted from my initial question.

Carol

"<i>having nearly missed an on-going flight due to such slow security lines and waiting for bags! DH had an insignificant (expensive) pocket item taken from him, so we mailed it home rather than lose it completely!! We have vowed to avoid SFO...</i>"

OK - you are boycotting SFO due to:

1) a slow security line. I've often seen much longer queues at various LAX terminals. Did you book an unreasonably short connection?

and 2) Your husband tried to board w/a prohibited item -- insignificant/expensive or not, and TSA did their job.

IMO SFO is much easier - but good luck to you . . . . .

I did this last June, comuing through ORD to SFO on the way to Sydeny and through LAX on the way back. Both were mid-week and SFO was so much more pleasant. If I do it again, I would make the effort to choose SFO.

I'm not going thru SFO... period! It has nothing to do with boycotting anything! I'm delighted that SFO is the preferred airport for so many here. To each his own. Thank goodness we can have our own opinions.

... the expensive item was NOT on any list of prohibited things. My DH was not trying to sneak anything onto a plane... geesh! He has certainly flown enough times to know what is and is not acceptable! The item had made it all the way to Asia and back, and then was taken in SFO. WHY?

I see that when I do a more specific UA search, the fares seem to be about the same $$ whether one is traversing thru LAX or SFO, so I won't have to fret about spending more of my hard-earned dollars to go thru LAX on my trip. And yes, they are just around $1800. I'm not sure what I left out of my search the first time around... Seems to be plenty of seat availability for my dates.

And now I'll say thank you one more time for the replies from everyone. Fodors is my go-to place when I have travel questions.

The item was banned or it would not have been taken... just because it was not caught earlier does not make it "acceptable"

I have been traveling with 'unbaggied' liquid for 3 years. When they take it I plan to congratulate them for finding what I have been hiding in plain sight for years. (It's become an experiement) I know my "item" is not allowed.... I am not going to try to blame the TSA for doing thier job (now the fact that I have been carrying this lotion for three years may indicate that doing thier job is not exactly the norm :) )

On what dates did you find $1200 W fares?

Good advice from ms_go about looking for any NC availability around your travel dates. Not likely to find availability but if you did you need to be flexible.

In fact, when I saw your OP I thought: "lax or sfo doesn't matter; fare difference ($200?) doesn't matter; airport preference doesn't matter; NC availability is what matters". I didn't present this opinion before because I doubted that you would find availability. But you might.

I thought I'd stay away from this thread that I started, since I really don't want to do SFO (altho the posters are all saying I should) and I don't want to further discuss my less-than-niceat SFO... I want LAX as my embarkation point to SYD. And that's that......

That said, mrwunrfl, you appeared, and you mentioned the NC fares, as did ms_go. To be honest, I'm not sure what they are! I have not looked for this type of availability at all. Dates are somewhat flexible, but the wedding is the weekend of Mar 13, and I can only be gone about 10-12 days... I know, I know, too far to go for that short of a time period... but it can't be helped. Sorry!!
Carol

Carol, "NC" is business class upgrade inventory. If you want to use a SWU, then you need to purchase an upgradeable fare (W or higher for a SWU) <b>and</b> there has to be available NC inventory--the same as if you were using miles to upgrade (I think we discussed this and how to search in one of your Bangkok threads awhile back). In fact, upgrade space for SWUs and mileage upgrades comes from the same "bucket," and United often doesn't make Australia upgrades available much in advance, or at least with any predictability. That's why I referred you to the flyertalk threads, as there's a lot of discussion there about how to maximize your chances of having the upgrades clear (e.g., which US gateway, which days of the week, etc.), since there's a very good chance you'd be on a waiting list.

I do know about finding the NC availability (yes, thank you for that information on a BKK thread).

I see that if I wanted to fly on a standard award to/from I could do it at the drop of a hat and have no problems with getting availability instantly (I was looking at it for my DEC BKK trip just to see what was still available in business class. Ugh... not much left at all. I think my upgradeable fare, waitlisted status, 1k standing w/UA, etc. will do me no good on this one! It's just plain full! I'm going to be really disappointed (not to mention really TIRED) after just a grueling flight in both directions. I know that mrwunrfl indicated some time back that he thought I had a pretty good chance of getting my business class seats.... but I'm not so sure this time.

I will look more closely at SYD flights and see if there is NC availability. Haven't really done that yet, as I'm not in a huge rush to get the trip booked right away.

Thanks for the helpful information, as always, ms_go.

C

Carol, you need to call the United 1K desk 800-756-1000 right away. The NRT-ORD leg of your outbound trip is NC2.

I think they can clear your upgrade for that leg and leave you waitlisted for NRT-BKK.

When you book a "direct" flight like 881 both (nonstop) legs of the flight have to have availability before you get automatically upgraded. If ORD-NRT was a different flight number from NRT-BKK then ORD-NRT would have cleared.

The ORD-NRT flight has lots (28) of biz class seats available.

NRT-BKK has no biz class available for sale at the moment (there still are M/H economy tix available for sale which is, at least, better than none available).

For your return trip: BKK-NRT has only first class seats for sale. NRT-ORD has lots of biz seats for sale but is currently NC0.

Bill
I always appreciate your advice. I'm afraid I can't easily call UA right now as I'm in southern Switzerland! Wish I could call them and plead my case... haha

I will be getting home on Wednesday... probably too late? Maybe I can get in contact with 1K by email?

Thanks so much.

Carol

Can you call UA at ZRH?

The number in Switzerland is 44 212-4717

I called UA to see if it was possible to ug you on ORD-NRT and the supervisor said they couldn't do it. You should call, though, because you might get a different answer.

Bill
Thanks for that phone number. I'll see if I can make the call. I am assuming it is answered only on business days, so calling on a Sunday would not help.

Again, thanks.

Carol

Okay, okay let's not jump all over Carol now since I'm beginning to understand the main reason why she prefers LAX over SFO on flight layovers. It is because she has aquaintances who live in Los Angeles area, which is why she prefers to go there so she can hang out with them in between flights, perhaps meet up with them in the only decent building on the premises, the Theme Building, or somewhere else nearby. She's trying to tell you that she doesn't want to go by way of San Francisco because, and I'm only assuming this, she doesn't know anybody there.

We all know that SFO's first class layout is far superior than that of the obsolete and decrepit third world layout of LAX, that's true, and I definitely prefer SFO for my layovers since this airport is much more modern, quiet, clean, convenient and comfortable. I've changed flights at LAX and will never go back there again. To top it all off I have aquaintances living in the Bay Area as well. When Carol arrives at LAX, her friends come and pick her up, they hang out over dinner or a drink, have a few laughs together for a few hours and then they drop her off again so she can catch her next flight. Hence, she doesn't have to rely on that curbside shuttle service, which is the only way to get around for most others who transfer there. She doesn't care how unsatisfactory or difficult LAX may be. That's not the first thing on her mind.

Carol, to answer your question why it is more expensive to change flights at LAX than at SFO is because of increased landing fees at LAX, which has been losing money, levied upon the airlines that serve there. This increase reflects on fare paying passengers, which is why you would have to be charged more to make up for that difference. I wish I had better news for you!

Uh -- carol posted this 18 months ago. You registered and somehow found this

Curious what search terms you used????

I just happened to come across it and decided to throw in my my five cents. I know it was very late. I was registered from before, but my old User Name and P/W didn't work. Anyway, I don't feel offended about Carol's preference of LAX over SFO since she is a rarity and among the small minority, so it's best not to fret over that.

I've always heard a majority of travelers rate SFO very highly, especially after the IT opened back in 2000. When I first set foot in it just for a visit after the short walk from BART, I was awestruck!!! I marveled at the architecture of this amazing building. My first thought was that it could qualify as one of the Seven Wonders of the World - a vast improvement from the old IT, now T2.

SFO used to be my base for cross country or overseas travel in the years I've lived in the Bay Area. Now that I moved to Arizona, I am definitely going to use SFO to transfer between flights since I'm planning a trip to visit Australia and New Zealand, hopefully this summer (winter down there). I was going to book a Qantas flight, but changed my mind when I heard Qantas is ending direct services to SFO in May. I did not want to take Qantas' partner American Airlines and waste my valuable time connecting and waiting in between flights at dumpy and blighted LAX, which I have vowed to avoid and never go through that rat hole again, so I decided to book travel on Air New Zealand to SYD via Auckland from SFO where the waiting time at AKL is roughly an hour and a half.

I actually sent an e-mail to Qantas proudly stating to them that my preference is Air New Zealand to and from the U.S. instead of them from now on. Aussies hate losing out to the Kiwis, which is like a big slap in the face. Even a handful of Aussies who regularly travel to the Bay Area are dissatisfied with the Qantas decision to pull out of SFO. I also stated my dissatisfaction with LAX and that at least nine out of ten Bay Area-based travelers to Australia will not patronize Qantas via the AA connection because of that dump. I can hear Air New Zealand laughing now!!!

Why pull up such an old post?

But while we're at it I like SFO slightly better than LAX. Things just seem to go smoother for me there.

Absolutely! But the air carriers don't seem to see it that way. All they are concerned about are their on-time performance without giving a thought about what goes on inside for travelers inside airport terminals, i.e. passenger comfort, processes through U.S. Customs and Immigration; transportation to and from the airport and transfers between terminal buildings. SFO has what LAX lacks: rail transportation such as BART; AirTrain people mover service connecting all four terminals (all of them physically connected for those who prefer to walk); showers in the International Terminal; easy freeway access (SFO being the only major West Coast airport with direct freeway access). Another plus, SFO is planned to be an integral part and one of two California airports - the other being Palm Springs Airport - as a stop for high speed trains planned for the state at the existing modular Millbrae Station currently shared by CalTrain and BART.

The busiest airports concentrate mostly on constructing longer runways with fewer or no incursions to the needs of and attracting more air carriers without giving a thought to the needs of passengers such as better terminal connections. It took JFK so long to finally build a people mover system to connect all terminals. Prior to that, curbside shuttles were the only methods used and sometimes passengers took cabs between terminals. LAX currently has no plans to add any rail or people mover system, so it's like going back through time. Road access to and from LAX is via Sepulveda Avenue where traffic must go through one set of traffic signals, which has basically remained this way since the beginning of time. So foreign air carriers in particular focus mainly on America's crappiest airports.

Ironically, SFO has the edge over LAX to and from Frankfurt, Germany with three daily nonstops via United and Lufthansa while LAX only has one via Lufthansa. SFO was recently chosen by Lufthansa as the next U.S. destination to be served daily with the giant A-380 Super Jumbo and replacing its current Boeing 747 service. Air France will be replacing its daily Boeing 747 between SFO and Paris with a daily A-380 except it will be seasonal during the summer months comlimented with three additional flights with the smaller A-340. Other times will be just one daily with the A-340. SFO also plans to reconfigure its runways to reduce delays.

FWIW, the new T2 at SFO is supposed to be absolutely fabulous. I haven't seen it yet.

I've only seen computerized images of T2 and it looks nice. Some of the designs dating back to when the terminal first opened in 1954 are retained but enhanced with modern designs, giving off that pleasant and unique style. It reopened a couple of weeks ago with Virgin America and American Airlines relocating from the International Terminal and T3, respectively, to become T2's new tenants.

T1, I believe, is scheduled for renovations in the near future. Boarding area B, formerly used by TWA and Eastern, is slated for demolition and replaced. It will be interesting to see what the future boarding area will look like!

I'm Carol. Was surprised to see my old thread pop up after one year. I ended up flying out via SFO and returning via LAX. I still prefer LAX (and it really does not have anything to do with having friends there)

My trip was really lovely.

I can see that you're among the very small minority who likes LAX, Carol. I've been avoiding it like the plague since 1984, and have vowed never to change flights there ever again, because it is still like a throwback to the old days with its outdated and obsolescent curbside shuttle service, which is the only method used to get around and has to share with the rest of the snarled automobile traffic - I once had to change flights there coming in from SFO where I had to go to another terminal to catch a YYZ-bound flight and had to pay a fee on the portion going out and coming back via Sepulveda. To me the shuttle drivers are rude and I was not happy. I felt like I was at some third world airport. You're probably used to it since ORD (another airport I like to avoid) and LAX are very much alike.

But then again, we are all different with our own opinions and preferences. You like what you like and I like what I like!!! It shouldn't be up to anyone else to tell a person what to do. You go where you want to go and people should respect that. Since I'll always prefer SFO over LAX, I don't want anyone telling me that I should go to LAX when I don't want to go there...period!

I'm sure you've already read what I've written earlier about why it costs more to go in and out of LAX than SFO, and that was because I read some years back that landing fees at LAX were tripled in order to prevent some terminals from being shut down due to unprofitability and they had no choice but to hike these fees to keep them open.