For SF Bay Area Travelers Wishing to Avoid Decrepit and Overcrowded LAX
Sep 18th, 2011, 02:41 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For SF Bay Area Travelers Wishing to Avoid Decrepit and Overcrowded LAX
If you are planning a trip between the Bay Area and Australia or New Zealand, you may find there are only two nonstop flights out of SFO with one to Sydney on United Airlines and one to Auckland on Air New Zealand, both Star Alliance partners. The only other options out of SFO are connecting flights to other cities. Bay Area travelers – about eight out of ten – avoid connections at overcrowded and decrepit LAX like the plague. When it officially announced ending its nonstop thrice-weekly flights between SFO and SYD effective mid May 2011 and initiating a codeshare plan with Oneworld partner American Airlines to ferry Bay Area passengers between SFO and LAX, Qantas Airways, no doubt, probably received only a trickle of Bay Area travelers, far less than it had hoped. The last SFO-SYD flights for Qantas saw a sharp decrease as travelers sought out alternatives such as Air New Zealand, which saw a sharp increase where they had to replace their Boeing 777 with a Boeing 747 on the SFO-AKL route. I will still book flights on Aussie-based air carriers provided it is not to or from the United States.
While there have been mostly negative views on United Airlines’ daily nonstop SFO-SYD route, most Bay Area travelers probably prefer Air New Zealand over United to SYD via AKL due to a friendlier and helpful staff. Others have been going by way of Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore or Tokyo before even considering going by way of LAX, which has never been designed as a transfer facility between flights if it involves having to change terminals isolated from one another. While airlines such as Qantas don’t see that, travelers do!
While there have been mostly negative views on United Airlines’ daily nonstop SFO-SYD route, most Bay Area travelers probably prefer Air New Zealand over United to SYD via AKL due to a friendlier and helpful staff. Others have been going by way of Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore or Tokyo before even considering going by way of LAX, which has never been designed as a transfer facility between flights if it involves having to change terminals isolated from one another. While airlines such as Qantas don’t see that, travelers do!
Sep 22nd, 2011, 01:27 AM
#3
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avoid it at all costs. I just did that nightmare flight last week.
I am Cairns as I write.
No on line check in.
You must present copy of your ET visa- I did not have mine with me last time Q just checked on line and it was fine, so I did not think about it, my error, AA did not show me having it so after an hour of back and forth the quick down and dirty way out was to buy another.Their computers do not talk to each other and it had to be done via phone Q showed it but AA did not so they would not accept Q's word I had one.
We were forced to wait until all others had boarded even standbys and then allowed to board - Q had us booked in row 19 we were placed in last row which of course made a hassle to get off etc.
We had 4 hour layover leaving SFO, AA was just under a hour late leaving, when we arrived there, got off etc we had just 1 hour left.
By the time AA let us take the direct shuttle to Q gates - they have holding area the plane was already loading.
I can only shutter at what it is going to be coming back as there is only 2 hours between Q arrival at LAX and AA SFO flight. I don't know anyone who has managed to get through LAX passport/customs and on to another flight in 2 hours as most far east pacific flights all come in within a hour or so each other and the lines are long long long.
I am Cairns as I write.
No on line check in.
You must present copy of your ET visa- I did not have mine with me last time Q just checked on line and it was fine, so I did not think about it, my error, AA did not show me having it so after an hour of back and forth the quick down and dirty way out was to buy another.Their computers do not talk to each other and it had to be done via phone Q showed it but AA did not so they would not accept Q's word I had one.
We were forced to wait until all others had boarded even standbys and then allowed to board - Q had us booked in row 19 we were placed in last row which of course made a hassle to get off etc.
We had 4 hour layover leaving SFO, AA was just under a hour late leaving, when we arrived there, got off etc we had just 1 hour left.
By the time AA let us take the direct shuttle to Q gates - they have holding area the plane was already loading.
I can only shutter at what it is going to be coming back as there is only 2 hours between Q arrival at LAX and AA SFO flight. I don't know anyone who has managed to get through LAX passport/customs and on to another flight in 2 hours as most far east pacific flights all come in within a hour or so each other and the lines are long long long.
Sep 22nd, 2011, 06:42 PM
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using LAX as a port of entry is a nightmare and the long waits can extend to a point of stress and frustration since there is only one arrivals area that handles every incoming overseas flight and, at times, overcrowding is horrendous when Customs checkpoints are understaffed and delays are common that make Ellis Island look like a Sunday school during the immigration wave of the early twentieth century. Chances are, once you clear Customs, you might just be able to make it to your connecting domestic flight when it is a race against the clock, so it's a gamble.
I even heard a majority of Aussie travelers to the USA compare Customs and Immigration arrivals area at LAX like a corral and every passenger being treated like cattle, rounded up and herded into a holding pen. Today, most travel agents around the nation will do their best to book their clients on flights not involving LAX, especially on return flights, and booking them mainly on flights via SFO where processing through Customs there is quick and easy for arriving passengers entering the United States.
This is probably why the QF codeshare with AA between SFO and LAX will be poorly conceived, especially if AA experiences sudden delays leading to chaos and confusion for many. To make matters worse for QF, V Australia is rumored to begin service at SFO sometime in the near future due to its relationship with Virgin America, where it would pick up where QF left off.
I even heard a majority of Aussie travelers to the USA compare Customs and Immigration arrivals area at LAX like a corral and every passenger being treated like cattle, rounded up and herded into a holding pen. Today, most travel agents around the nation will do their best to book their clients on flights not involving LAX, especially on return flights, and booking them mainly on flights via SFO where processing through Customs there is quick and easy for arriving passengers entering the United States.
This is probably why the QF codeshare with AA between SFO and LAX will be poorly conceived, especially if AA experiences sudden delays leading to chaos and confusion for many. To make matters worse for QF, V Australia is rumored to begin service at SFO sometime in the near future due to its relationship with Virgin America, where it would pick up where QF left off.
Sep 23rd, 2011, 09:34 PM
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One more thing I might add: recently I saw an ad that Qantas is trying to do all it can to lure Bay Area travelers to LAX by slashing its fares and making it affordable via codeshare partner American Airlines from SFO. Such action means that QF has been drastically losing Bay Area travelers - even the one time Qantas faithful - to other air carriers such as Air New Zealand's direct service between SFO and SYD with a quick change at AKL.
Affordable or not I will always avoid LAX, especially on return flights and having to waste valuable time having to clear Customs there. It is also possible that Bay Area travelers are snubbing QF because of its pullout from SFO.
Affordable or not I will always avoid LAX, especially on return flights and having to waste valuable time having to clear Customs there. It is also possible that Bay Area travelers are snubbing QF because of its pullout from SFO.
Sep 26th, 2011, 08:08 AM
#6
Here's a thought. Your problem is really with Qantas.
It was Qantas who chose to relocate to TBIT (the international terminal).
Instead, fly Air New Zealand which uses T2. Much easier to manage and far better service.
It was Qantas who chose to relocate to TBIT (the international terminal).
Instead, fly Air New Zealand which uses T2. Much easier to manage and far better service.
Sep 29th, 2011, 09:27 PM
#7
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree.... really dislike LAX, but the problem of the moment is Qantas trying to route everything through there now. It wasn't long ago that SEA, SFO and LAX were all options (but since we were going on to STL, the connections didn't always pan out). Now, from what I can tell, both SFO and SEA are no longer Q direct cities. They've added DFW instead. Obviously hooking up with AA's hub system.
I don't know that I agree that ANZ is far better service than Qantas, after having flown both many times and ANZ just this month. Both can be very good, and like all businesses, can slip at times. For international, I'd rate either head and shoulders above any airline flagged in the US.
But if you really want to fly Qantas, you're going to need to fly out of LAX, Honolulu or Dallas. Up until recently (and still, according to the LAX site), Qantas has one Sydney bound flight out of T4, which is the same terminal AA uses for the domestic bit. If you can make sure you get that flight, you're doing a lot better than us schlubs who end up in that TBIT mess.
I don't know that I agree that ANZ is far better service than Qantas, after having flown both many times and ANZ just this month. Both can be very good, and like all businesses, can slip at times. For international, I'd rate either head and shoulders above any airline flagged in the US.
But if you really want to fly Qantas, you're going to need to fly out of LAX, Honolulu or Dallas. Up until recently (and still, according to the LAX site), Qantas has one Sydney bound flight out of T4, which is the same terminal AA uses for the domestic bit. If you can make sure you get that flight, you're doing a lot better than us schlubs who end up in that TBIT mess.
Sep 30th, 2011, 12:54 AM
#8
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I live in Marin County, outside of San Francisco, and travel to NZ a few times a year. I wish Air New Zealand would add more flights into and out of SFO. The flights between Auckland and SFO are so crowded, and the cheaper economy fares sell out much faster than those leaving from LAX.
Having to connect from SFO to LAX to pick up an Air New Zealand flight adds so many more hours to the total travel time, plus there is always the chance of flights being grounded at SFO because of fog.
Yes, and LAX customs is a horror, and they can be mean. As a darker-skinned mixed race US citizen, I've often been treated like I was trying to illegally sneak into the USA. My luggage contents and documents are severely scrutinized, while my lighter-skinned Finnish American husband just sails through customs. I think they eased up after receiving some formal complaints, because this hasn't happened to me the last few times I've passed through customs at LAX. Customs at SFO is much less stressful. Plus, the airport isn't as crowded and chaotic. LAX can be confusing, especially if you have not been there before.
I like Qantas. I did fly Qantas out of LAX earlier this year and the flight was only half full, so we got to stretch out. The food, the wine, the movies, the flight attendants were all fine. I'd love to be able to catch a flight out of SFO that was only half full. Never going to happen with Air New Zealand, but this must be good news for the airlines.
Having to connect from SFO to LAX to pick up an Air New Zealand flight adds so many more hours to the total travel time, plus there is always the chance of flights being grounded at SFO because of fog.
Yes, and LAX customs is a horror, and they can be mean. As a darker-skinned mixed race US citizen, I've often been treated like I was trying to illegally sneak into the USA. My luggage contents and documents are severely scrutinized, while my lighter-skinned Finnish American husband just sails through customs. I think they eased up after receiving some formal complaints, because this hasn't happened to me the last few times I've passed through customs at LAX. Customs at SFO is much less stressful. Plus, the airport isn't as crowded and chaotic. LAX can be confusing, especially if you have not been there before.
I like Qantas. I did fly Qantas out of LAX earlier this year and the flight was only half full, so we got to stretch out. The food, the wine, the movies, the flight attendants were all fine. I'd love to be able to catch a flight out of SFO that was only half full. Never going to happen with Air New Zealand, but this must be good news for the airlines.
Sep 30th, 2011, 06:16 AM
#9
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We travelled through LAX on a Toronto to Perth trip on Qantas and were pleased enough with the service on Qantas that we will be doing it again this year. Although in general we try to avoid the hassle of any trip through the US, (as do most people we know) we do have the advantage of clearing US customs prior to departure in YYZ. On this upcoming trip we will be returning via Dallas, with more than enough time to wait in multiple lineups. We've travelled 3 times to Oz on 3 different airlines, and never seen even one empty seat--what a bonus that would be.
Sep 30th, 2011, 01:11 PM
#10
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand the negative reviews about UA 863/870. I fly them often and have no issues at all. I like the timing of the SFO to SYD actually because it's conducive to sleep. Arriving and leaving SFO International is about as painless as it comes.
Oct 6th, 2011, 01:41 PM
#11
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What SFO has that LAX does not: better terminal layout (all of them connected), a people mover system, direct rapid transit service with BART and direct freeway connections. The international terminal, the largest in North America, was designed to attract more foreign carriers.
Here's the downside of SFO...its runway pattern!
Air carriers are more interested in on-time performance, which includes runway patterns and are not interested in terminal layouts - no matter how unsatisfactory they are - or how travelers move about the airport. LAX's four runways are parallel while SFO's four runways are perpendicular with two bisecting the other two roughly midway at ninety degrees. the biggest downside of SFO's runways is the 750-foot spacing separating each parallel runway making it dangerous for airliners to land simultaneously as far as weather conditions are concerned including fog. The current runway pattern dates back to the 1930s, obsolescent by today's standards, long before the existence of jetliners.
Modernization for SFO is long overdue as far as operations and technology are concerned especially reconfiguring its runway pattern. Creating landfill further out into San Francisco Bay was considered until liberal environmental groups sued to have it stopped. Another option left open would be to construct floating runways similar to one built in Tokyo Bay. Upgrading SFO's precision instrument landing system during bad weather is also needed to reduce delays since this airport is ranked as one of the worst for on-time performance. If these reconfigurations were carried out, SFO can become a fierce competitor with its counterpart 380 miles to the south.
Here's the downside of SFO...its runway pattern!
Air carriers are more interested in on-time performance, which includes runway patterns and are not interested in terminal layouts - no matter how unsatisfactory they are - or how travelers move about the airport. LAX's four runways are parallel while SFO's four runways are perpendicular with two bisecting the other two roughly midway at ninety degrees. the biggest downside of SFO's runways is the 750-foot spacing separating each parallel runway making it dangerous for airliners to land simultaneously as far as weather conditions are concerned including fog. The current runway pattern dates back to the 1930s, obsolescent by today's standards, long before the existence of jetliners.
Modernization for SFO is long overdue as far as operations and technology are concerned especially reconfiguring its runway pattern. Creating landfill further out into San Francisco Bay was considered until liberal environmental groups sued to have it stopped. Another option left open would be to construct floating runways similar to one built in Tokyo Bay. Upgrading SFO's precision instrument landing system during bad weather is also needed to reduce delays since this airport is ranked as one of the worst for on-time performance. If these reconfigurations were carried out, SFO can become a fierce competitor with its counterpart 380 miles to the south.
Oct 6th, 2011, 06:52 PM
#12
I don't know that you will ever see those improvements at SFO, just too many environmental issues.
I spent a summer (fog) and winter (rain) driving back and forth between SF and LA just because the flight schedule at SFO was just too unreliable and I could count on the trip being 8 hours or less if I drove. All bets were off if I flew.
I spent a summer (fog) and winter (rain) driving back and forth between SF and LA just because the flight schedule at SFO was just too unreliable and I could count on the trip being 8 hours or less if I drove. All bets were off if I flew.
Oct 6th, 2011, 08:37 PM
#13
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generally, I'd say the size of the market around each airport seems to have a lot to do with whether a domestic airline will choose that as a primary hub but the enviromental thing is a very good point, with its effect on schedules. On the coast, the biggest jumping off point is towards Asia, rather than domestic markets (not that you *can't connect back to points east after flying from the east, but... yuck). So the environmental stuff though could make many of their connections extra problematic because they're with partner airlines. I can say a lot of bad things about LAX, but weather delays has ever been one of them. Not ever.
Then Qantas would have chosen LAX because AA chose LAX as a hub. And Qantas just moved their flights to Dallas* for the same reason.
* I used to see Qantas ads targeted at Australians: "San Francisco on sale!" and I wouldn't think twice about it. Sure, why not? But now I've started seen the same ad format "Dallas on sale!". I can't even begin to describe the difference in the way those two things sound. lol But I have noticed they've greatly increased the size of the font behind it reading "Connect to many other cities through our American Airlines partner!"
Then Qantas would have chosen LAX because AA chose LAX as a hub. And Qantas just moved their flights to Dallas* for the same reason.
* I used to see Qantas ads targeted at Australians: "San Francisco on sale!" and I wouldn't think twice about it. Sure, why not? But now I've started seen the same ad format "Dallas on sale!". I can't even begin to describe the difference in the way those two things sound. lol But I have noticed they've greatly increased the size of the font behind it reading "Connect to many other cities through our American Airlines partner!"
Oct 7th, 2011, 02:43 PM
#14
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only time I would ever "change flights" down there - and it will probably be so many years from now - is when Palmdale replaces LAX as the primary airport.
Why Palmdale? To begin with there's plenty of room with so much open space surrounding this facility, decent terminal buildings can be built and lengthy runways can be constructed. On the plus side is that this is one of two airports that will be served directly by the proposed high speed rail system (the only other airport will be SFO), which leaves many more options open. I would take the high speed rail, which gives me more time to rest up without any lengthy layover as one would taking a connecting flight and having to leave security and then having to re-enter security again.
Travel time between Palmdale and SFO airports via the high speed rail network would be roughly 2½ hours each way. Since the two cities will also be connected, Travelers from LA or SF can choose between Palmdale or SFO.
Why Palmdale? To begin with there's plenty of room with so much open space surrounding this facility, decent terminal buildings can be built and lengthy runways can be constructed. On the plus side is that this is one of two airports that will be served directly by the proposed high speed rail system (the only other airport will be SFO), which leaves many more options open. I would take the high speed rail, which gives me more time to rest up without any lengthy layover as one would taking a connecting flight and having to leave security and then having to re-enter security again.
Travel time between Palmdale and SFO airports via the high speed rail network would be roughly 2½ hours each way. Since the two cities will also be connected, Travelers from LA or SF can choose between Palmdale or SFO.
Oct 8th, 2011, 05:27 PM
#16
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe not, which I wrote earlier that it will take years - twenty years at the earliest - but LAX definitely has no room to be served by high speed rail or any kind of rail system since it is situated in a very bad area too close to and surrounded by built-up areas where its neighbors would not want anything like that built. From what I hear, road access is bad enough with all that snarled traffic in and out with one set of traffic signals to go through and, unlike SFO, no direct freeway access.
I can see why in its tight space that the California High Speed Rail system has excluded LAX and chose Palmdale (along with SFO) instead due to its wide open surroundings.
I can see why in its tight space that the California High Speed Rail system has excluded LAX and chose Palmdale (along with SFO) instead due to its wide open surroundings.
Oct 10th, 2011, 03:13 PM
#17
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Travel time between Palmdale and SFO airports via the high speed rail network would be roughly 2½ hours each way. Since the two cities will also be connected, Travelers from LA or SF can choose between Palmdale or SFO."
Don't hold your breath waiting on this. I live in the central valley where they are set to build the lst section in 2012 its appx 100 miles Fresno to just outside Bakersfield. There is no way that they are going to get from Palmdale to SFO in 2.5 hours because:
According to the stated plans (check your local Library) the total time at high speed (225mph) is 12-13 minutes on flat from Merced to the foothills which will then be tunneled through to Gilroy area. The balance of the trip is going to be in the 100-135 mile and hour range with numerous Central Valley Stops.
Many here in the valley question the proposed fare $49.00 Fresno to Bakersfield, what is the fare going to be for the entire trip?, the plan to tunnel under the grapevine and through the coast range west of Gustine, Ca. and once it does get to Gilroy area how are you going to get to SFO. Cal trains is cutting way back on its trains to SFO and that as it is now is at least an hour on the express. Bart is not extended into San Jose nor Gilroy as of this time. Then there is the problem of where the electric to run this train is going to come from along with other issues such as numerous stops (5 right now) stated in plan in the plan in the Central Valley as of this time.
I was just through LAX Sunday 10/9 flying in from Melbourne. Total time from exit of plane to getting through customs appx 1 hour 11 minutes. 5 passport control officers, 3 non residents, 2 residents. Customs had 4 officers, 3 lanes for general public one for crew, etc. Transfer to AA was slow as you needed to go through security yet again though bags were transferred for you. AA then loaded us all on bus for drive across the airport to a walk up stairs to plane. It was 43 minutes late.
The Qantas AA marriage is not a good one. On leaving AA had two of three tickets in system and only 2 of three visa's. It took over an hour at the check in counter to get it fixed, as the counter person had to call the normal anyone call in line, she did not have a direct line to Q. Re the visa though I had a copy AA could not find it so I ended up taking their advice and just buying another. On leaving Australia I was pulled aside and asked why I had two visa's. I explained and agent said it was happening as AA and the Q computers did not talk to each other.
Also a HEADS UP: I had my purse ripped off my shoulder as I boarded a tram in Melbourne. My fault for not having it across my chest as I normally do, I was in a hurry and it was just hanging on my shoulder, young man grabbed it as I was boarding the tram and ran off. Byby camera thankfully the money was nill.
Don't hold your breath waiting on this. I live in the central valley where they are set to build the lst section in 2012 its appx 100 miles Fresno to just outside Bakersfield. There is no way that they are going to get from Palmdale to SFO in 2.5 hours because:
According to the stated plans (check your local Library) the total time at high speed (225mph) is 12-13 minutes on flat from Merced to the foothills which will then be tunneled through to Gilroy area. The balance of the trip is going to be in the 100-135 mile and hour range with numerous Central Valley Stops.
Many here in the valley question the proposed fare $49.00 Fresno to Bakersfield, what is the fare going to be for the entire trip?, the plan to tunnel under the grapevine and through the coast range west of Gustine, Ca. and once it does get to Gilroy area how are you going to get to SFO. Cal trains is cutting way back on its trains to SFO and that as it is now is at least an hour on the express. Bart is not extended into San Jose nor Gilroy as of this time. Then there is the problem of where the electric to run this train is going to come from along with other issues such as numerous stops (5 right now) stated in plan in the plan in the Central Valley as of this time.
I was just through LAX Sunday 10/9 flying in from Melbourne. Total time from exit of plane to getting through customs appx 1 hour 11 minutes. 5 passport control officers, 3 non residents, 2 residents. Customs had 4 officers, 3 lanes for general public one for crew, etc. Transfer to AA was slow as you needed to go through security yet again though bags were transferred for you. AA then loaded us all on bus for drive across the airport to a walk up stairs to plane. It was 43 minutes late.
The Qantas AA marriage is not a good one. On leaving AA had two of three tickets in system and only 2 of three visa's. It took over an hour at the check in counter to get it fixed, as the counter person had to call the normal anyone call in line, she did not have a direct line to Q. Re the visa though I had a copy AA could not find it so I ended up taking their advice and just buying another. On leaving Australia I was pulled aside and asked why I had two visa's. I explained and agent said it was happening as AA and the Q computers did not talk to each other.
Also a HEADS UP: I had my purse ripped off my shoulder as I boarded a tram in Melbourne. My fault for not having it across my chest as I normally do, I was in a hurry and it was just hanging on my shoulder, young man grabbed it as I was boarding the tram and ran off. Byby camera thankfully the money was nill.
Oct 10th, 2011, 04:24 PM
#19
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. Sorry for your experience in Melbourne Joanne!
Living here in the city for a couple of years now, I'm on the trams and trains all the time is does my wife everyday, and we haven't ever had that happen (yet).
Agree with you about that LAX transition from Q to AA. Ours is often as long (and with a toddler in tow) and it can be mind-numbing. It's not really any better coming in on another international airline into TBIT and trying to connect, for that matter.
Living here in the city for a couple of years now, I'm on the trams and trains all the time is does my wife everyday, and we haven't ever had that happen (yet).
Agree with you about that LAX transition from Q to AA. Ours is often as long (and with a toddler in tow) and it can be mind-numbing. It's not really any better coming in on another international airline into TBIT and trying to connect, for that matter.
