What Are The Worst Airports?

[RickJay]

I spend a lot of time in airports. I've likely been to every major airport in North America, most of them more than once, and a hell of a lot of the less than major ones. Not many of them are all that great, but some are sure a lot less great than the others. For my money - and counting only airports of a reasonably significant size in North America, because that's my experience - the worst I've ever seen are:

1. Logan International Airport, Boston - Dirty, old, shitty restaurants and I'm always delayed there. There is nothing, nothing, nothing good about the inside of Logan.

But of course, what makes Logan truly horrendous is what's on the outside. Logan is most famous for being nearly impossible to get to the airport, or to get anywhere FROM the airport, in a reasonable period of time because of the Big Dig, which cost $19 trillion and takes five hours to get anywhere and it might collapse and kill you. Even if you do get back into the airport, the road system is modelled after the Labyrinth that the Minotaur lived in. When people tell you to fly into Providence, Manchester or even Hartford, they aren't shitting you; Hartford may be 2 hours away, but it's invariably a quicker trip.

2. La Guardia International Airport, New York City - La Guardia is named after Fiorello La Guardia, who was the mayor of New York during World War II. I think they actually built this shitpile DURING World War II, because the food in the restaurants all looks like it's been reheated since 1943 and the only airplanes that fit into this tiny airport are P-51 Mustangs. Not that they don't try to get jets into it. In a hilarious twist, La Guardia is right next to Riker's Island, so if your A-320 doesn't quite make it off the tiny runway you might end up in a cell with Jim Bob The Hillbilly Rapist. Which would still be better than La Guardia's departures lounge, which smells like feet and has chairs that would have given the Marquis de Sade a huge chubby.

Of course, La Guardia is also impossible to get to. The adjoining Grand Central Parkway is jammed from 8 AM to 7:59 the following morning every day ending in the letter Y. On paper it's only ten or twelve miles to the Queens Midtown Tunnel to get into Manhattan right on 37th, but that's going right thru Queens; in reality, you may as well be in Kinshasa.

3. Pearson International Airport, Toronto - Not really one terrible airport, it's three. Yes, Pearson is actually three totally separate airports that share an airfield, I shit you not - completely different buildings, luggage systems, check in counters, even three rental car centers for every single rental car agency. I once - I swear to Christ Jesus I am not making this up - stood next to a lady who was trying to explain that her ticket had to be extended because her brother had just died, and they told her she had to go to one of the other "terminals" to get the right form, because her flight wasn't from the one she was standing in, even though it was the same airline in, allegedly, the same airport! In a cruel twist, however, the three airports still are not big enough so half the time you have to take a bus to a "Satellite terminal" even worse than the three big ones. "Terminals" (actually Airports) 2 and 3 were built during the Bronze Age and the food and shops show it. Terminal 1 is newer but the food still sucks and it has the worst baggage return system in North America; if you're one of only one or two planes arrived, you will still be lucky to get your bags in under an hour.

Oh, and is there a train linking the three terminals? Nope! Just a shitty old shuttle bus that might be by in ten minutes. Or an hour. Pearson is also the only major airport left in North America that I know of with NO wireless internet in the main departures areas. Honest to God; nothing at all. No business areas, either. Unless you're first class, you're fucked.

[Elysium]

I have to agree 100% about Logan. I've lived in MA all my life, and it's always been a hassle. ESPECIALLY since the ceiling tiles fell on that lady and the direct route to Logan was closed for so long. I do LOVE a detour that spits you out into the middle of downtown to fend for yourself without further signage.

Way to go Boston.

[Syntropy]

Chicago O'Hare is hideous. Aside from being huge, connecting flights are routinely scheduled at opposite ends of the terminals; 45 minutes isn't enough time to run from one end of the terminal to the next, take a shuttle bus, run through the next terminal, up a flight of stairs and find the correct gate. It's as if no planning whatsoever went into it. Flights are constantly being bumped and delayed, and there's nothing scarier than trying to touch down in snow AND fog. Hate it, hate it, HATE it. Which is a shame, because I love Chicago.

[Danja]

Charles DeGaulle in Paris is terrible. We went there on a connection flight from Indianapolis to Rome and got stuck there for hours because we missed the flight.

Why did we miss the flight? Well, the airport is a big circle. We get off our flight (which of course came in late) and ask, "how do you get to terminal x?" "You must take the train." "But the train goes clockwise and the terminal is just a little bit in the counterclockwise direction..." "You must take the train." We took the train.

We finally get off the train and ask again, "How do you get to terminal x?" "Vell, you have to go thees vay and zen... (a French speaking person walks by) How can I help you (I presume that's what he said... I don't speak French). By the time we got directions, our flight had already taken off. The next one was in eight hours. We went to figure out where we could stay for the duration. By the time the airport representatives decided to help us, much of that time had already expired so it was pointless.

Of all the airports that I have flown into, that one must be the worst.

[Cunctator]

I haven't had the "pleasure" of travelling through Logan, but I agree that La Guardia and Toronto both leave a lot to be desired.

Others:
- CDG in Paris is pretty grotty
- Moscow and St Petersburg were both hideous
- Reykjavik was woefully inadequate to service the number of passengers it gets in summer.

[Alpine]

I agree with O'Hare, LaGuardia and Logan. Ack. I love having to switch terminals at Logan in the summer - a nice muggy sprint, anyone?

I also want to throw in Houston, with the "little shuttle train that couldn't" between terminals and no food or shops to speak of. (Hello, *bookstore* anyone?) I haven't been there for a while (no surprise), so maybe it's improved.

Newark is and always has been a hellhole.

[Ale]

Charles DeGaulle in Paris is terrible....

f all the airports that I have flown into, that one must be the worst.

Glup!, I´ll change planes there in January, any advice?

[Paul in Qatar]

Chuck DeGaulle in Paris is nasty, hard to find a non-French newspaper or beer.

La Guardia? I prefer it to JFK. I go through JFK four times a year, enough to hate it and not enough to learn to deal with it. Twisty, turny, dirty with low ceilings. When you have a choice, pick Newark.

Jeddah is a nice city served by the kind of airport that (as Jeff Foxworthy would say) you can by oats by the scoop in. Same for Cairo. Huge tourist industry, nasty airport.

Nicest? Las Vegas is roomy and quirky. Guadalajara is well-lit and efficient. Rio is nice, but in Portuguese which always throws me for a loop a bit. Good food in Frankfurt.

[Sublight]

By the time we got directions, our flight had already taken off. The next one was in eight hours. We went to figure out where we could stay for the duration. By the time the airport representatives decided to help us, much of that time had already expired so it was pointless.
Next time, ask this guy (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a990820.html). He knows where all the good spots are.

As much as I like to complain about the location of Narita airport for Tokyo, at least it has frequent express trains that actually stop inside the terminals. Boston has a subway station on the Blue Line named "Airport" but it must be named for Jebediah Airport, the 17th-century frontiersman. Either that, or some committee member looked at the plans and said "On a quiet day, I wonder if you could hear a plane taking off from there," at which the rest of the planning crew laughed so hard that they named the station 'Airport' to commemorate the joke. It certainly wasn't because it's anywhere convenient to Logan.

[asterion]

I hate DFW. It's a major hub in an airport that wasn't designed to be a major hub. And walking through it is like one of those old cartoons with the endlessly-repeating backgrounds of gates, the exact same advertisments, and lousy restaurants and stores.

I'm not a big fan of O'Hare, but the American terminal does have the best airport bookstore I've seen.

[silenus]

The wife votes for Dallas-Ft. Worth. I vote for O'Hare. Both are fraught with delays and hassles. Second place for both of us is Atlanta. I've never had a flight through Atlanta that wasn't delayed in some way.

Favorite has to be SeaTac. Easy to into and out of, professional people all over the place, and easy to navigate.

[pulykamell]

Logan is awful. Charles de Gaulle is the worst European airport I've been to. Sheremetyevo (Moscow) is ugly, and one of my times through it, I got taken to a back room, asked a bunch of questions, and searched, so no doubt that also colors my impression of it. I've been through dingier, more run-down airports, but for one on the European continent, in a capital city, no less, it was awful.

I actually quite like O'Hare. I will agree that it's too big, but there's plenty of stuff to keep you occupied there if you have a long layover. I don't think I've ever had a bad experience in O'Hare. It's not as good as my favorite airports -- Schiphol (Amsterdam) or Heathrow -- but it's not even close to being as bad as Logan or Sheremetyevo. I also remember hating Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport quite a bit.

[ZebraShaSha]

The wife votes for Dallas-Ft. Worth. I vote for O'Hare. Both are fraught with delays and hassles. Second place for both of us is Atlanta. I've never had a flight through Atlanta that wasn't delayed in some way.

Favorite has to be SeaTac. Easy to into and out of, professional people all over the place, and easy to navigate.

It's commonly known that you will miss your flight if you get to Atlanta 2 hours before your flight. I've heard many stories of people going even 3 hours before and still missing them. Sure, all large airports have security measures, but 3+ hours seems ridiculous.

[susan]

I can't say the airports in Bucharest or Ho Chi Minh were a pleasure. Hong Kong is spacious and pretty, but gigantic and hard to navigate quickly.

[Governor Quinn]

I
2. La Guardia International Airport, New York City - La Guardia is named after Fiorello La Guardia, who was the mayor of New York during World War II. I think they actually built this shitpile DURING World War II


And you would be right. Completed in 1939 (http://www.panynj.gov/aviation/lhismain.HTM)

[flickster]

Hmmm - no mention of Kansas City yet so I'll toss them into the fray.

Airport was designed to give small town access to the boarding gates, but this was all prior to today's security screening needs. Now due to the layout, each set of gate waiting area has to have it's own security screening instead of going through security once and have access to shops, food, & bars all within the secure area.

[Syntropy]

I think Douglas Adams said it best: "No one has ever said 'Pretty as an airport. There's a reason for that.' "

[anu-la1979]

O'Hare...Midway as much as possible.

I am not a fan of either of DC's airports but I loathe DC altogether.

[Lissla Lissar]

Waco. The Waco airport is the worst one of been in. Not because of size, although it's tiny. No, it is terrible because it is the only airport I've ever been in here they forgot about the plane. Not only did they seemingly forget the purpose of airports, but none of them saw fit to even wonder where the damn plane was, or if there might be any passengers whom they should notify.

So, Waco.

[pool]

It's commonly known that you will miss your flight if you get to Atlanta 2 hours before your flight. I've heard many stories of people going even 3 hours before and still missing them. Sure, all large airports have security measures, but 3+ hours seems ridiculous.

I've gone to Atlanta 2 hours before my flight and made it with plenty of time to spare more than once. Maybe it was because I was just flying to Florida?

[Dewey Finn]

I haven't been there in years, but I thought the airport in Detroit was really dreary. I understand that Northwest has built a new terminal, so it may have improved.

And some airports seem to have all of the restaurants outside the security checkpoint, so once you get through the gauntlet, there's almost nothing to eat. Others only have them inside the secure area, which means I can't easily eat lunch with the person who brought me to the airport. They need to make sure they have enough restaurants and shops on both sides.

[Campion]

The wife votes for Dallas-Ft. Worth. I vote for O'Hare. Both are fraught with delays and hassles. But DFW (maybe my favorite airport) is at least sensible in its layout. Once you understand the theory behind the layout, it's very, very easy to drive into to pick someone up, and it's also very easy to get from gate to gate. Much, much better than O'Hare, which is one of the dumbest layouts I've seen.

[Geek Mecha]

I got to Atlanta 30 minutes before my flight and made it with time to spare. I was actually really impressed by the place. I'd never been there before, but I navigated to my gate like I was a veteran.

[lazybratsche]

I haven't been there in years, but I thought the airport in Detroit was really dreary. I understand that Northwest has built a new terminal, so it may have improved.

The new terminal at Detroit Metro is big and shiny, and once you actually make it past security, it's pretty nice. The adjoining parking garage is a ridiculous maze though. Getting in or out, or from the car to the terminal, is a complete mess. I think that's a product of some of the graft and endless shuffling of contracts during the terminal's original construction.

All the other terminals are a pain to deal with, mostly due to ad-hoc additions and rearrangements over time. Probably not much worse than other old airports, though.

[Fritz]

I've gone to Atlanta 2 hours before my flight and made it with plenty of time to spare more than once. Maybe it was because I was just flying to Florida?
I've never had a problem into or out of Atlanta.

Worst for me is LAX - no shops or amenities outside of security. Best is Changi in Singapore

[Fern Forest]

Hmmm - no mention of Kansas City yet so I'll toss them into the fray.Really? I love that airport. I was in and out of it 4 times in July. Got to hang around with people I was picking up or dropping off. Each security point only has at most a couple of gates behind it so no massive lines. You get off the plane, leave the gate and meet your friends. Walk just a bit to the luggage retrieval. Then out the door you're standing next to and you're at the road.

My only complaint? You can't even find an issue of Playboy there. Whereas at some other airports (MSP) you can get Hustler. Well, that and there's not much else to do there.

[madmonk28]

O'hare is miserable for all the reasons mentioned above.

Dulles sucks because it is always under construction, the security lines are miles long and you have to take that stupid shuttle out to terminal C.

Frankfurt has zero places to sit, is way too small for the amount of traffic it gets and you are forced to walk in circles looking at the same cheesy duty free shops over and over during layovers.

[Red Barchetta]

Favorite has to be SeaTac. Easy to into and out of, professional people all over the place, and easy to navigate.

Come again? That hideous, cracking, dirty, dark, concrete mass of a mess is your favorite airport? Oh, and it smells too.

My favorite? Whatever <B>Orlando's</B> is called. Pretty much the opposite of Sea-Tac. Clean, bright, and I love the trains.

[Cat Jones]

Glup!, I´ll change planes there in January, any advice?If you have specifics about CdG send me a mail. It's not pretty but, now that I know it better, not the hell hole I once thought it was.

[Ferret Herder]

I love O'Hare, but of course I never have to connect through there. :D Great amenities and for a flight out of there, the walk to the gate isn't bad at all IMO.

Completely agree with Logan's suckiness. Typically the stores past security aren't worth checking out - note that I usually fly United so that might just be their terminal - so if you want to find a bookstore or some last-minute souvenirs, you have to go back through security. However, for the friends I stay with in the Boston suburbs, the Logan location is actually more convenient and much faster than flying into Manchester. (Manchester is a wonderful airport, it's just that it's three times farther of a drive.)

[flickster]

Really? I love that airport. I was in and out of it 4 times in July. Got to hang around with people I was picking up or dropping off. Each security point only has at most a couple of gates behind it so no massive lines. You get off the plane, leave the gate and meet your friends. Walk just a bit to the luggage retrieval. Then out the door you're standing next to and you're at the road.

My only complaint? You can't even find an issue of Playboy there. Whereas at some other airports (MSP) you can get Hustler. Well, that and there's not much else to do there.
I agree that the concept for the Kansas City airport was great. But with today's security, what I didn't like was that once you go through screening to get to the gate waiting area, you're stuck - unless you want to go back through screening all over again. No access to restrooms, food, newsstand - nothing - all of that is in the "non-secure" area.

[lazybratsche]

Dulles sucks because it is always under construction, the security lines are miles long and you have to take that stupid shuttle out to terminal C.

Who the hell came up with those goofy shuttles anyways? They seem like one of the world's biggest kludges, and yet they must have been specifically designed for that bizarre arrangement.

[Renee]

Come again? That hideous, cracking, dirty, dark, concrete mass of a mess is your favorite airport? Oh, and it smells too.




I like SeaTac too. The main restaurant/shop area has this wall of glass (not the best picture) (http://www.jeremybwilliams.net/photocogitations/SeattleAirport.jpg) that must be 80' tall; it looks out onto a gorgeous mountain range. Not dark or old looking at all. The shopping and food are great.

I personally hate the Las Vegas airport. Crap restaurants, a smoking area that stinks the whole place up, and the constant beeping of millions of slot machines. Ugh.

[Dunderman]

Charles DeGaulle in Paris is terrible.I had heard horror stories about that airport, so when I managed to land there and find a bus out of the place relatively painlessly (except that, apparently, hamsters that get too old and tired to hack it on the SDMB are exported to run the baggage return system at Charles DeGaulle) I was pleasantly surprised. Then came the return trip.

I enter the airport and a big sign points me towards the check-in counters. Great. The sign points through a big door guarded by people in uniforms. A security check, I assume, but no: they want to see your boarding pass. They speak just barely enough English to tell me that I have to check in before going through there. This presents a slight problem, as I need to go through there in order to check in.

Not one to frown unnecessarily, I start hunting for a check-in counter. Finally, on the other side of the airport, down an escalator, in the basement, there are two check-in counters crewed by actual people. Great! I confidently stride up and present my credentials. They tell me to go to check-in counter 12. I go back up, and sure enough the sign pointing me through the big door says "Check-in counters 1-12". Dilemma.

As it turns out, you have to (as in have to, as in there is no other option) use the terminals that are called something like "quick check-in" or "express check-in" to receive your ticket, so you can go through the big door, so you can check in for real. Two questions present themselves:

1. Why is it called "quick" or "express" when there is no other option? How can something be "quick" if there isn't anything that's not quick?

2. How is it "quick" or "express" if you have to check in again once through the big door? (To be fair, I believe you don't have to check in again if you don't have luggage.)

Fortunately, the Charles DeGaulle airport apparently knows it sucks, and has hired people specifically to help lost travellers out. One of them spotted me and helped me through the "quick" thingie. Those people should be called Official De-Suckifiers or something.

[Nava]

I must admit that having my ass grabbed by the "lady" from Security did not make me like DC's airport any more. By two "ladies", actually.

But by then I had already noticed that the stores were shitty, the hotel shuttles nonexistant, the doors are clogged by these chunks of concrete that make it very difficult to get through with a big suitcase (Og forbid someone with a kiddie cart or, even worse, a wheelchair... at least the kid should be with someone who can carry it in his arms), the information people stare at you when you ask for information waiting for you to dissapear and stop clogging their airspace (and of course the information they give you is of the "you don't understand it unless you already know what is it they speak of" variety)...

Least friendly airport I've ever been to.

[asterion]

I just realized that several posters are seeing this from having to go through security and even possibly having to drive to the airport. I'm used to hitting most of the ones listed (that I have been to, I mean) as a connection. I've never been through DFW except as a connection so I have no idea how bad it is on the other side of security. The only times I've started from O'Hare I took the Blue Line in (same with Midway and the Orange Line.) I don't think I've ever been in Dulles or National as BWI was always a better choice. No, wait--I had to clear customs at National and that sucked. But most of my hatred is saved for DFW.

[robardin]

All the hatred for CDG has caught me by surprise. I'm not a very frequent international traveler, but both times I've been to Europe I've gone through CDG and didn't think one bad thought about it; once on my honeymoon to Paris, and once as for a changeover on a flight to Copenhagen, which went completely smoothly. In fact I thought it was excellent compared to US airports. It felt more like I was walking through a mall of some kind than an airport, and the duty free shops sold excellent French cheeses. And it had easy rail access right into Paris.

Then again, I'm at least somewhat fluent in French and had no difficulty reading the signs or finding out about the "only goes clockwise" shuttle system. Probably more importantly, I fly mainly out of LGA, which truly is an antiquated, cramped and inhospitable bus terminal with airplanes in it. Not that I really "hate" going to LGA though; it's just a place to pass through on my way to somewhere else, I don't really romanticize it into something it's not trying to be, and it has the unbeatable convenience of being only 15 minutes away from my house. But by way of comparison to other terminals, it's pretty low on the sucks-or-not-ometer.

In the US, I've been to and through airports in Chicago (O'Hare), Logan, Newark, Atlanta, Cincinnati, LAX, SFO, Albuquerque, Washington DC (both BWI and Reagan), Minneapolis, Miami, Orlando (and of course JFK) in my adult life. My impressions of nearly all of them were mainly "wow, it seems so spacious, uncrowded and well lit", or "lookit the moving conveyor belts, indoor shuttle systems, and LCD departure boards", as a corollary of "this is so much better than La Guardia or JFK". Except at JFK, where I find myself thinking, "At least it's better than La Guardia".

[Frosted Glass]

LaGuardia sucks all the way around. I hate driving there, I hate going through security there and I hate their meager offerings of shops. On the whole it is an ugly and agitating experience. I really dislike the drive though. The fastest way for me to get there is up the turnpike, over the George Washington, over the Tri-borough and onto the Grand Central. If you know where I am located, that is ridiculous but unless it is 3 in the morning, the stupid midtown tunnel is always a mess.

Unlike most people, I have enjoyed my experiences at Atlanta. I will admit that I am biased, however, because I had the best over night airport experience while flying through Atlanta. It had the most comfortable seating that I have ever seen in an overnight terminal. This is a stark contrast to the cold hard tile that I slept on at LAX. Still, LAX was moderately enjoyable.

[BMalion]

I agree LGA is by far the worst New York airport. In my experience, once your are through security there is no bar, and if you're hungry, feel free to enjoy the soggy croissant served by the coffee bar. EWR is by far the preferred choice.

LAX is incredible in that even at 2 am on a Thursday you'll stand in a line 3 blocks long to go through security and always be right behind some dimbulb who nerver flew before and argues with the TSA personel. I only use BUR nowadays.

Never missed a connection in either ATL or DFW so I can't say they suck for me, at least they have restaurants and bars.

CLE, my home airport, is kinda grimy and is sadly in need of an renovation. Also the Continental Presidents Club lounge is old and cheap, the only food there is packaged cheese, crackers and apples.


Airport Codes:

LGA = LaGuardia, NY.
EWR = Newark, NJ.
CLE = Cleveland, OH.
BUR = Burbank, CA.
ATL = Atlanta, GA>
DFW = Dallas Fort Worth, TX.
LAX = LAX

[Dunderman]

LAX = LAXReally?

[Shagnasty]

I agree about Logan. I use Providence which is infinitely better. The masterminds of 9/11 picked Logan as a departure point for some of the terrorists for a good reason. They knew that if any of them were hesitant about hijacking a plane and flying it into a building that day, they wouldn't be after they had been through Logan. I have had the same impulse when I was forced to travel through there.

[Sunspace]

3. Pearson International Airport, Toronto - Not really one terrible airport, it's three. Yes, Pearson is actually three totally separate airports that share an airfield, I shit you not - completely different buildings, luggage systems, check in counters, even three rental car centers for every single rental car agency. I once - I swear to Christ Jesus I am not making this up - stood next to a lady who was trying to explain that her ticket had to be extended because her brother had just died, and they told her she had to go to one of the other "terminals" to get the right form, because her flight wasn't from the one she was standing in, even though it was the same airline in, allegedly, the same airport! In a cruel twist, however, the three airports still are not big enough so half the time you have to take a bus to a "Satellite terminal" even worse than the three big ones. "Terminals" (actually Airports) 2 and 3 were built during the Bronze Age and the food and shops show it. Terminal 1 is newer but the food still sucks and it has the worst baggage return system in North America; if you're one of only one or two planes arrived, you will still be lucky to get your bags in under an hour.

Oh, and is there a train linking the three terminals? Nope! Just a shitty old shuttle bus that might be by in ten minutes. Or an hour. Pearson is also the only major airport left in North America that I know of with NO wireless internet in the main departures areas. Honest to God; nothing at all. No business areas, either. Unless you're first class, you're fucked.Good news on the Pearson front:

a) There is now a train linking Terminal 3, Terminal 1, and a distant parking lot on Viscount Road.
b) Terminal 2 will close at the end of January.
c) There is now apparently WiFi in Terminal 1, at least. I wouldn't know. I don't have a laptop.

Now the bad news:

a) Yes, there is a train, but the type of train they chose!

The "Airport People-Mover" (APM) is a cable car made my an Austrian ski-lift manufacturer, DCC Doppelmayr (http://www.dcc.at/). It seems to run quietly and all, but the ride is horrendous: it shakes and judders as it moves down its track.

Part of the reason is that it does not move on rails, exactly; its rubber tires ride on flat beams. Underneath the cars are guide wheels that prevent them from running off the track. The airport authority claims that one reason for choosing that system is that snow and ice will simply fall off the track, and no clearing is needed.

Since it's a cable car, the wheels need provide no traction, either; the pull comes from the car's gripper on the cable. There are two completely-independent trains on two separate and parallel tracks, with no connection between them.

The stations, however, are spacious and well-lit, with platform-side doors that match the doors on the trains, and they put the Toronto subway to shame (not difficult at times).

b) Terminal 2 will close at the end of January, when the big addition to new Terminal 1 opens. Terminal 2 will be demolished. The shuttle busses that link the terminals will apparently be discontinued. Not a big deal, because there's the interterminal train? Perhaps.

Just one minor detail. Those shuttle busses also pause at the only place where you can easily (that is, merely inconveniently) get to the airport terminals from the bus stops on Airport Road.

For people riding the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus #58 from Malton, this is the only way to get onto the airport. (You can take the City of Mississauga bus #7 from Malton, which does go onto the airport grounds.) TTC buses coming from the other direction all go into the airport grounds and stop at all the terminals. There's even a frequent and direct express bus from the subway.

All this is by way of introduction to the fact that public-transit connections at Pearson airport are terrible. The buses stop out in the open on the lower levels of the terminals, and there is no real bus terminal: no transit ticket agency or transit-ticket machine or helpful transit staff, not even a real waiting area, just a shelter at Terminal Three and some chairs under the concrete roof at Terminal One.

I can get there, but then I'm a transit geek and an airport geek. For travelers unfamiliar with the area, it must be bleakly-confusing. But then this is not surprising with the TTC, which remains blissfully-unaware of anything resembling high-quality marketing or customer service.

Now, the train. For many years, there have been tentative plans to connect the airport to the city by some sort of train. At one point the TTC even started building a subway west along Eglinton Avenue, but the plug got pulled by the provincial government.

The intersection of Renforth Drive and Eglinton, southeast of the airport, has always been intended as a key transfer popint for people going to the airport from future transit lines. Northeast of the airport, the Georgetown train line passes within a few kilometers of the airport. It would seem to be logical to extend the APM to new stations at Renforth and on the Georgetown line.

In the airport's official 1995 plan, the APM is shown as being extended from the airport to external transit interchanges. But can the train they chose be extended in this way? I suspect not. The length of track required would be two or three times that that exists. The station on Viscount Road does not seem to be designed to let the tracks be extended.

There is a plan to built yet another train to the airport, separate from existing regoinal trains on the Geaorgetown line, and from the APM. This is bogged down in endless discussion, and I for one can't see how they would thread it in among all the existing roads and bridges and freeway offramps that serve the airport. And it would be significantly-less flexible than an extended and more robust APM that would connect with other transit at both ends.

[Caricci]

I agree about Logan. I use Providence which is infinitely better. The masterminds of 9/11 picked Logan as a departure point for some of the terrorists for a good reason. They knew that if any of them were hesitant about hijacking a plane and flying it into a building that day, they wouldn't be after they had been through Logan. I have had the same impulse when I was forced to travel through there.

Shagnasty , lets keep TF Green under our hats, okay? No sense letting it get all crowded with Logan refugees.

[qubed]

I don't see where the hatred for DFW comes from. I've probably flown through there about 200 times. Delayed flights seem no more prevalent than any where else. And as Campion said, the layout is really quite good. It's quite fast getting around, especially with their new people mover. I've rarely not used it as a connecting airport, so I can't say much about security, access, etc.

Yeah, maybe the restaurants aren't fantastic, but they aren't bad either.

[What Exit?]

I have only been to about 21 airports.
La Guardia is the worst I have been to. Its problems have been well covered above.

Cincinnati (in Kentucky) was the second worse. Easy enough to get to, but a really crappy layout with buses between terminals and very poor signage. I was greatly underwhelmed by the entire setup. Getting to the ground transport was also a pain in the neck.

I actually like O’Hare; I have flown in and out of O'Hare fairly often. I am surprised by the dislike. It is well laid out and has plenty of facilities. Of course, I never made a connecting flight in O'Hare. Maybe this is why my experiences are better. I have had delays at many airports. O’Hare is no worse than most.

I will not fly out of Kennedy or La Guardia; I stick to Newark, Atlantic City and occasionally Philly.

I do not recall Burbank to be very pleasant, but I do not remember any details at this point. {Probably for the best}

Jim

[Sattua]

I am very happy to see that Heathrow is not featuring prominently in these complaints. There is always a long way to walk, one has to go through extra security, and they never tell you your gate until boarding actually starts, but--it's a fun airport. The shopping is great.

The worst security I've ever been through, aside from LaGuardia on the morning they arrested all those plane bombers in the UK, was Domodedovo in Moscow. It was in May 2005, two days after the whole city had lost power because of the heat, and the security line like the rest of the whole damn country was not air conditioned. It took nearly an hour to get through. On a day when nothing special was happening. It didn't help that I had a bad case of food poisoning and there was nowhere to sit.

I hate LGA because flights are so often delayed both into and out of it. It is exceptionally bad. Just because it's so exceptionally busy, I guess.

Charles de Gaulle, aside from being mofo ugly, is basically not a functioning airport because every time they find a piece of unattended luggage--which in my experience is literally every fifteen minutes--they have to close down that whole section of the terminal until the security guys finish their cafe and croissant and can be bothered to go look at the luggage. By which time, its owner has shown up and is extremely unhappy, and all traffic behind that section in the terminal is backed up, sometimes to the point where the security line stops.

[phungi]

Philadelphia has to have the worst luggage handling system in the US. You can easily wait 30-45 minutes for your bags... I believe there have been numerous issues with no-bid contracts for various businesses building the new terminal as well as retail shops fo the other terminals...

USAir uses Philly as a hub but has had major problems hiring workers and managing operations... the Philly Inquirer ran a series on October on this mess.

[Antinor01]

I agree LGA is by far the worst New York airport. In my experience, once your are through security there is no bar, and if you're hungry, feel free to enjoy the soggy croissant served by the coffee bar. EWR is by far the preferred choice.

LAX is incredible in that even at 2 am on a Thursday you'll stand in a line 3 blocks long to go through security and always be right behind some dimbulb who nerver flew before and argues with the TSA personel. I only use BUR nowadays.

Never missed a connection in either ATL or DFW so I can't say they suck for me, at least they have restaurants and bars.

CLE, my home airport, is kinda grimy and is sadly in need of an renovation. Also the Continental Presidents Club lounge is old and cheap, the only food there is packaged cheese, crackers and apples.


Airport Codes:

LGA = LaGuardia, NY.
EWR = Newark, NJ.
CLE = Cleveland, OH.
BUR = Burbank, CA.
ATL = Atlanta, GA>
DFW = Dallas Fort Worth, TX.
LAX = LAX

I think you meant LAX = Los Angeles, Ca. ;)

LAX isn't always that bad, I've flown out of there a bunch of times. We've only had to wait an excessive time (over 2 hours to get from walking in the terminal to gate) once. Usually we get through rather quickly but then, we tend to fly very late evening. I like the layout of LAX, just that big circle with lots of parking in the middle.

I do agree about Cleveland, it's a tiny and sadly outdated airport and the rental car facilities require a rather long shuttle ride. In its favor though is the fact that it's small, easy to get in and out of and pretty convenient to the highways. I'm hoping traffic isn't too bad thursday, I'm flying in there and driving to columbus.

[scr4]

But DFW (maybe my favorite airport) is at least sensible in its layout. Once you understand the theory behind the layout, it's very, very easy to drive into to pick someone up, and it's also very easy to get from gate to gate.
Maybe you can explain the logic then? I've gone through there several times and hated it every time. I can imagine it's a good airport if it's your home or destination airport (because all gates are close to the access road). But the gates are arranged linearly, so if you need to get from gate 12 to gate 32, you have to walk past gates 13-31. That's a long walk. I also seem to recall waiting forever for a shuttle to take me to another terminal.

[GorillaMan]

3. Pearson International Airport, Toronto - Not really one terrible airport, it's three. Yes, Pearson is actually three totally separate airports that share an airfield, I shit you not - completely different buildings, luggage systems, check in counters, even three rental car centers for every single rental car agency.
Sounds like Heathrow. Which is a great airport if you get to use Terminal 4 (the new shiny airport), and a shit one if you use Terminal 1 (the oldest of the airports on the site).

What's more, the Underground link to T4 included a large loop to accomodate the anticipated construction of another new airport called Terminal 5....which is now being built in a different location entirely, so trains will run to either "Heathrow T1-4" or "Heathrow T1-3 & 5" :smack:

[Carl Corey]

The best description of Logan International I ever heard was:

"It's an enigma wrapped inside a landfill."


Philadelphia has to have the worst luggage handling system in the US. You can easily wait 30-45 minutes for your bags... I believe there have been numerous issues with no-bid contracts for various businesses building the new terminal as well as retail shops fo the other terminals...

True. Apparently the mayor's brother was a consultant to all the businesses that did get contracts. :dubious:

[Sunspace]

And despite all the things wrong with Pearson, it's still better than it was. Old Terminal 1, now demolished, was described as being "like the Third World with carpets". It was an excellent piece of early-sixties architecture that was simply too small for the planes and the crowds it was forced to serve.

[Shoeless]

I agree that the concept for the Kansas City airport was great. But with today's security, what I didn't like was that once you go through screening to get to the gate waiting area, you're stuck - unless you want to go back through screening all over again. No access to restrooms, food, newsstand - nothing - all of that is in the "non-secure" area.
It depends on the airline. I flew out on USAir earlier this year, which is at one end of Terminal A, and they have a lower level with a couple of gates for boarding the USExpress turboprop planes. There are bathrooms down on the lower level, so you don't have to go back out through security.

[BMalion]

...I do not recall Burbank to be very pleasant, but I do not remember any details at this point. {Probably for the best}


the pros of Burbank are that it is small and easily accessable. You can drive right up to the entrance and say goodbye and walk right to check in. The security line is rarely long, the baggage collection and exit from the airport is fairly quick, I can step off my plane and be in my rental car in the city insidei 20 minutes, (It's also 6 mles from my friend's house!). The cons are like many small airports, no food or bar once you are past security.


Even flying a connection as opposed to non-stop to LAX I'll take Burbank.

[bump]

It depends on the airline. I flew out on USAir earlier this year, which is at one end of Terminal A, and they have a lower level with a couple of gates for boarding the USExpress turboprop planes. There are bathrooms down on the lower level, so you don't have to go back out through security.

Don't forget about the utter lack of gas stations anywhere near KCI! I came from Topeka last year, and didn't see any gas stations within 5 miles of the airport. I ended up paying the fee for turning in the rental car un-filled.

That, and the multiple security gates stuff is retarded in this day and age. They made me put my doughnut through the x-ray machine, in spite of the fact that I made it through the walk-through x-ray holding it.

[Kevbo]

But DFW (maybe my favorite airport) is at least sensible in its layout.

I started a long rant about how you must be nuckin futs, then goggled for a photo to illustrate my points. never mind

Aerial photo of DFW (http://kh1.google.com/kh?n=404&v=12&t=tqtsrrtstrrssr)

DFW used to have concourses that went, it seemed, for miles, and terminals with no secure-area transport between, so you often had to re-clear security when making a connection (a small hassle, I admit, pre-9/11/01). You'd arrive at the far tip of one of those freaking concourses just in time to hear the announcement that your flight had been reassigned to the far end of another one. Fark, but I hated DFW.

Still, from the photo, you can see that there are bottle necks in the taxiway system at the north and south ends of the terminal group. This causes huge delays if (when) gates are reassigned, and aircraft land on the "wrong" side of the terminal. In a dozen or so trips, I don't think I've ever spent less than 20 minutes taxiing to an arrival gate, and several times it was more than an hour (admittedly, these may have been prior to modernization)

This structure also requires you to use the slow and (IME) unreliable trams between terminals. The last time I went through DFW, I had to take the little train between terminals. A train failed, blocking the track, freezing the system, and stranding about 200 passengers for 45 minutes or so. What should have been a simple no-brainier layover turned into a sprint to the gate, with them literally closing the hatch behind me, and pushing back as soon as I fastened my belt....other passengers glaring daggers at me. I talked to the attendant, and it turned out that due to a computer glitch they were unable to determine if I had checked baggage. (I didn't) If they were sure I had not, they would have left without me.

[BMalion]

I think you meant LAX = Los Angeles, Ca. ;)
...

I was trying to be silly.




I do agree about Cleveland, it's a tiny and sadly outdated airport and the rental car facilities require a rather long shuttle ride. In its favor though is the fact that it's small, easy to get in and out of and pretty convenient to the highways. I'm hoping traffic isn't too bad thursday, I'm flying in there and driving to columbus.

Thursdays are pretty good, just aim for the 71 south, which is very close to the rental car lot, and enjoy your visit.

[elmwood]

El Paso. A relic of the 1960s, with absolutely, positively nothing to do except eat at a family restaurant, or look at knives in the gift shop.

[Gary T]

Don't forget about the utter lack of gas stations anywhere near KCI! I came from Topeka last year, and didn't see any gas stations within 5 miles of the airport. I ended up paying the fee for turning in the rental car un-filled.
Actually, there's service station at the airport complex. It's on one of the streets (Paris St., Bern St., etc. - I don't know which) crossing the main approach road. Sorry you missed it.

[Harmonious Discord]

The one they build by you.

[Lightray]

Don't forget about the utter lack of gas stations anywhere near KCI! I came from Topeka last year, and didn't see any gas stations within 5 miles of the airport. I ended up paying the fee for turning in the rental car un-filled.
There's an utter lack of anything near KCI. That damn airport is so far away from KC that they should just call it the St. Jo airport.

I particularly loathe my local airport nemesis, STL, because it was built and designed as a hub airport, but isn't a hub anymore -- yet security still takes longer than at any hub I've gone through! For a while after 9/11 they had the metal detectors dialed so high that my glasses were pinging the damn thing -- and I got to stand around with three screeners playing the "guess what's in my pockets" game (keys? no. coins? no. nail clipper? no.) Mind you, all three were looking me in the eye while accusing me of smuggling in metal objects -- over which eyes were perched my metal glasses, of course.

I don't fly into Denver that often, but I think my luggage has gone walkabout every single time I have done so.

[Random]

O'Hare always comes up in these threads, but it never struck me as that bad. I mean, it's hard to enjoy an airport, and I don't enjoy O'Hare, but it's easy to get to, has a decent number and quality (by airport standards) of shops and restaurants, there are enough chairs, and the security setup is adequately designed.

Compared to some other airports I've been at (I hate Kona on the Big Island, for example), it doesn't bother me.

But I seem to be in the minority on this. Is it because ORD is my home airport, and so I never change planes there? Are the problems that others see related to plane-change issues?

[VenusProbe]

Favorite has to be SeaTac. Easy to into and out of, professional people all over the place, and easy to navigate.Are you sure it was Sea-Tac? I live in Washington and flew into and out of that garbage heap 4 times last month. The security people are humorless and rude, the frickin lines at least 30 minutes long (4:30am on a Sunday?). The area outside of baggage claim stinks of cigarette smoke because thats the only place that it's allowed.

My favorite has to be the one at Savannah, GA. Friendly people and a place to smoke and have a beer at the same time. Denver is a close second.

[Ludovic]

Count another vote for hating the airport in DC (Dulles? I swear I've never been there and I always transfer at National, oddly enough,) that won't let you go a few hundred feet to the next terminal without going through security, instead making you take a shuttle that only departs every half hour or so, and gets you to the next terminal by driving across the taxiway (and incidentally takes up almost enough space to fit in another gate.)

[GrizzRich]

The OLD (10+ years ago) Westchester County Airport (White Plains, NY; airport code HPN) was an unbelievable sight.
It was little more than two building of equivalent size (one of which was a quonset hut) and a gravel parking lot. As I recall, only one of the two buildings was air-conditioned.
This in, what was arguably, the wealthiest per-capita county in the USA.

Someone explained to me that the folks there didn't want their airport to become another end-of-the-line for New York City-bound passengers... so they decided not to have a bigger airport.

Since then, they've built a new, lovely airport.

[Caprese]

I've had some pretty bad times with DFW.
I've heard all the horror stories about CDG but have never experienced anything untoward. Franfurt is a little odd, but we did okay with it last summer.
One of my favorite airports is Amsterdam's Schiphol.
It's clean, easy to navigate, decent food, nice shopping.

[Glory]

the pros of Burbank are that it is small and easily accessable. You can drive right up to the entrance and say goodbye and walk right to check in. The security line is rarely long, the baggage collection and exit from the airport is fairly quick, I can step off my plane and be in my rental car in the city insidei 20 minutes, (It's also 6 mles from my friend's house!). The cons are like many small airports, no food or bar once you are past security.


I used to travel to Valencia, CA quite a bit for work and after one disastrous experience at LAX - traffic! long security lines! I always flew into Burbank for the reasons described above. Sure, there's no decent restaurants or stores, but it is fast fast fast.

My least favorite airport - New Delhi by far. Filthy, trash against the walls, hideous security, lack of lines to try to change money (complete with pushing and shoving), all the people pushing and shoving outside. My favorite international airport is probably Singapore - so easy to claim bags and go to the taxi stand.

[Anaamika]

O'Hare always comes up in these threads, but it never struck me as that bad. I mean, it's hard to enjoy an airport, and I don't enjoy O'Hare, but it's easy to get to, has a decent number and quality (by airport standards) of shops and restaurants, there are enough chairs, and the security setup is adequately designed.

Compared to some other airports I've been at (I hate Kona on the Big Island, for example), it doesn't bother me.

But I seem to be in the minority on this. Is it because ORD is my home airport, and so I never change planes there? Are the problems that others see related to plane-change issues?
Well, no. Provided you don't mind crappy directions like "The elevator is just behind the giant dinosaur" and when you get there, one giant dinosaur but no elevator. Wherever you land and wherever your connecting flight is will invariably as far apart as possible. This past time it took me 40 minutes of my alloted 50 to get all the way over there. I tried to wait for the tram, but it didn't come. So I tried at least to find the elevator but only found the dino. And I had a very heavy bag. Thank OG for the walking floors, they saved me, and even they had gaps where I had to carry/drag the bag.

I also think New Delhi is filthy and dirty but I also thought Newark was pretty damn crappy. No wonder everyone thinks NJ is a horrid place if they only see the airport. Newark people, clean it up a bit!

Paris was pretty bad.

Hmm. This strikes me as not a bad LJ entry - Airports I have been to and what I think of them.

[fluiddruid]

Harrisburg International Airport (http://www.flyhia.com/). Okay, it was mostly the airline, but the airport sucked too.

I was booked into Harrisburg for business. It's like the Hotel California. You can never leave! Our original flight was supposed to leave one afternoon. It was delayed over and over due to "mechanical issues". Then, after several hours, the flight team couldn't fly because they were over the amount of time they could legally stay at work without a rest period. Did they tell anyone? Oh no, not for over an hour while they hemmed and hawed. Finally we separated - one person staying at the terminal, and one person going to try to get a different flight. During this, they finally announced that they were cancelling the flight entirely. They then had one person trying to rebook the entire flight of over 100 people. The line was so long, I was greatly relieved to hear myself paged! Apparently rebooking was the best plan we had as now we had a new flight. Not until 6am the next day! There were no overnight flights from ANY airlines.

They did pay for the hotel (the company would've anyway, but I guess it was nice). We get up at around 4am to make the flight. Wait, wait, wait... plane's not there at 6. Or 6:30. Sometime around 7am the plane shows up. Again... technical difficulties. There is fuck all to do. I pay for a few precious minutes of internet at a ghastly rate. Finally we get on the plane around 11am. Keep in mind, the entire time since 6am, we are told "just a few minutes", so we can't leave the general area. The AC on the plane doesn't work and we sit on it for around 45 minutes, sweltering. Finally, the engines start to whir and cough. We then get OFF the plane; technical issues (this is a different plane!). I'm so tired from getting up at 4am that I'm practically in tears. They book us on another flight for that night, more than 24 hours after the original flight!

We go to the bar to try to get some solace. The shitty airport bar serves me a really watered-down, awful drink (I ordered a long island ice tea and it was pale yellow...). There is no decent restaurant. We mutually agree to rent a car if we are delayed again. The flight is indeed delayed, but only for a few minutes. We finally take off... I'll never be back.

[Dr_Paprika]

Toronto (Pearson) Airport is bad for many reasons -- high taxes and costs for airlines, lack of information staff (phones are not a substitute) and Internet, very poor public transportation access, bad weather... It is a little better with the people mover. I usually park in the reduced rate parking and access there is now good. Two years ago I missed a flight since the shuttle bus driver from the airport's own parking lot to Terminal 1 (via everything else) got LOST. I have had a couple problems with Air Canada as well that cannot really be blamed on YYZ. I don't think Toronto is in the top five worst, though.

I'd say the food in Toronto isn't bad, though. Access to Tim Horton's, Swiss Chalet and the over-rated Weber's are hardly cutting edge, but reasonable value. Many airports serve much worse food at crazy prices.

Logan and LaGuardia are horrible. So is Charles de Gaulle, which most Parisians would refer to as being in Roissy. Frankfurt is okay, unless you are flying RyanAir from their "Frankfurt Airport" which is nearly in Cologne and two hours drive from the city. The airport in Havana is pretty bad. I'm not a huge fan of the EZE airport in Buenos Aires, or the airport in Lima, Peru.

[NinjaChick]

Philadelphia's pretty high on my list of bad ones, but probably just because it's 'home' so I've flown through there dozens of times. I'm fairly certain that everyone who works down with the luggage must be blind and plain stupid.

Also, I've only flown through Kansas City once, but that was enough. Any airport where you can't use the toilet without needing to go through security again sucks.

I'm not a big fan of Dublin, but that's mostly just because I was about ten seconds away from getting arrested last time I flew out of there.

[Zsofia]

I can't believe there hasn't been hardly any hatred for Newark! I flew through there both ways on my way to Europe last month. How do I love thee, Newark? Let me count the ways!

1) My flight was late, and then, you know, customs. The guy who takes your bags back tells me that my flight has been delayed, though, and I have twenty minutes to make it! I can make it if I run! So I run, right into...

2) Security. For nineteen and a half minutes. I guess most international connections do this, but hell - I went through security TWICE in Lisbon, another shitty airport. I got on the plane, where they wouldn't let me have the Coke I bought in the airport because, proudly, "We're more secure than in America!", only on American flights. I touched down, went through customs, and emerged - what the hell do you think I'm carrying? How would I have gotten it? Jesus Christ, why are there only two lines open?

3) Signage. I'm going to gate C something. I can't find C something. I have a minute and a half. I know it's hopeless but I'm running through this airport like OJ in those old commercials. Wait, a sign to C? Back through security? Nooooo! I find somebody to ask in a store and they tell me, oh, that's another C. You want the C that's labeled A. So, of course, I missed it.

4) There's, like, one sit down restaurant. I'm tired. I'm about to cry. I do not want a food court, I do not want to stand up, I do not want counter service. I want to sit down and see a waiter. I didn't go to the one faux-Portugese place that was sit down, because I ate there on the way out and it was actively disgusting.

The only thing that saved my little sanity on that nightmare connection was the lady at the Nathan's Famous Hot Dogs stand, who was so kind I almost burst into tears, and the free booze at the not-the-Crown Room (they don't have a Crown Room). I hope to hell I never, and I mean NEVER, have to fly anywhere near Newark again.

Oh, yeah, and everybody knows about Logan. :)

[BMalion]

Do bear in mind that flight delays are rarely the fault of the airport itself.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Worst for me is LAX - no shops or amenities outside of security. Best is Changi in Singapore

I imagine that's typical of airports of that era, since virtually all the amenities were positioned in the concourses in the days when, if you meeting somebody or seeing them off, you could go right out to the gates.

There have been some meager efforts in the baggage claim areas at LAX, on behalf of those who are there to meet incoming passengers; a snack stand here and there, maybe a bar. And the Bradley (International) terminal does have a foreign exchange outside the security perimeter. Working near LAX, I've been able to use that a couple of times; it's very little hassle even though it entails driving into and parking at a very busy airport.

[Ferret Herder]

Thank OG for the walking floors, they saved me, and even they had gaps where I had to carry/drag the bag.
:confused: Those gaps are so you can actually get off the "moving sidewalk" and get to your gate, rather than being forced to take it all the way down the length of the terminal.

[vivalostwages]

I've never had a problem into or out of Atlanta.

Worst for me is LAX - no shops or amenities outside of security. Best is Changi in Singapore

I hate LAX too...Ugly, disorganized, inefficient. I'd much rather fly out of Ontario or Burbank any time--much smaller airports.

If I may mention the ones I like: Las Vegas' McCarran airport has never disappointed me. And I discovered last year how lovely the SFO (San Francisco International) airport is: many great restaurants and shops, plenty of people movers, stations for computer and cell phone users, museum displays, clean, spacious, nicely done.

[Zsofia]

Do bear in mind that flight delays are rarely the fault of the airport itself.
Oh, sure, but it's what happens after the delay that's the issue. (And my connecting flight's delay would have saved me, except for security and damned signage!)

[Freudian_Slip]

Gotta add my vote of hate for Logan. Nasty, smelly, gross. The worst part is that the times I've flown there, I ALWAYS end up having to go back through security and dealing with extremely surly "security" people.

Newark is pretty awful too - largely because of the unhelpful people and the confusing layout. I've done OK making connections through there; it's dealing with the yahoos at the front desk or "security" that is truly go-postal-inspiring.

[JRDelirious]

AA Terminal 8 at JFK. It is an affront to whatever dignity is left to air travel that this thing still exists, and it's even more aggravating when you compare it with the shiny new Terminal 9. It doesn't compare that well with the Port Authority Bus Terminal, come to think of it. Tight, uncomfortable terminal and baggage claim, unwelcoming customs/immigration area, worn-out unkempt look, bad pedestrian-traffic management (everyone has to move cutting across the direction of everyone else to get to and from where they're going), oddly laid out "safe zones", ...and the "food court"... you must be joking! This is the food court at one of the terminals for the world's largest airline at JFK? (*)

Not so bad but still a pain is Delta Terminal 2 at JFK. People, it has been 30 years since the security zones were established, you'd think they'd have had time to tear out the insides and reconfigure them into something that works better. And again, a poor selection of amenities inside the zone.

(BTW: Best addition to JFK -- the Air Train, hands down. Sure it's outside the Safe Zone and you may have to expose yourself to the elements to get into some of the terminals (or enter them through the baggage claim level or a side door), but it was going to be damn near impossible otherwise. And it does get you there.)

(The defunct TWA T5 was endearing to me in a nostalgic sort of way, but I'm sure a lot of people were thinking as they connected: "note to self: do not hire architect who drops acid" :p)

(* Note: from observation, AA's domestic gates sit in older, more beat-up concourses in PHL, Hartford[BDL], and EWR as well. Pattern?)

EWR is actually mighty fine if I only have to deal with Continental exclusively. But get inter-airline and yeah, confusion reigns. And don't get me started on the access-road layouts by Cthulhu & Associates traffic engineering.

BTW, I've never had a flight to Philadelphia that did not have to wait a good, long while for them to actually dock the jetway to the plane. Heck, last March I had one flight that got there a few minutes early and had to sit around on the apron not for lack of open gates but because "nobody seems to have been expecting us". That is NOT reassuring, but hey, what did I want, it WAS on USelessAir.

And this brings me to SJU. Good ol' hometown only-show-in-town SJU. Luis Muñoz Marín International, and were the former Governor not dead and unable to reply he'd probably have declined the "honor". SJU is excellent if you have a plan that allows you to blow right through it and spend the absolute minimum time actually in it. What, you say, we should stand up for the hometown team? Not if they make a point of making us look bad to visitors. Moving sidewalks/escalators that move only sometimes, baggage carrousels with the same affliction, half offline at any given point; which are equally likely to get switched around at a moment's notice, and have two handling one commuter flight apiece while a third is handling the last 5 arriving heavies all at the same time. Handling of the actual bags in a league with Philadelphia. Terminal B's lackadaisiacal restroom-cleanup schedule. The severely limited choice of eateries both outside and inside the safe zones and virtual absence of any other shop except for duty-free and newsstands. The badly, no, make that not-at-all organized pickup/dropoff lanes. The fact that nobody at PRPA has seemed to think of having even ONE of the concessions remain open late nights even though SJU has a not-insignificant amount of flights in and out in the very late evening and very early morning. Like I said, if you have a strategy to get-in-get-out fast, it's great. It's not for lingering.

[kunilou]

I particularly loathe my local airport nemesis, STL, because it was built and designed as a hub airport, but isn't a hub anymore -- yet security still takes longer than at any hub I've gone through! For a while after 9/11 they had the metal detectors dialed so high that my glasses were pinging the damn thing -- and I got to stand around with three screeners playing the "guess what's in my pockets" game (keys? no. coins? no. nail clipper? no.) Mind you, all three were looking me in the eye while accusing me of smuggling in metal objects -- over which eyes were perched my metal glasses, of course.

IF ONLY St. Louis had been designed as a hub airport. In fact, the main terminal was built in the mid-1950s. Curbside check-in was an afterthought, parking was a never-thought, the main terminal level is a giant cavern and the lower level, which includes both security and baggage claim, is hopelessly undersized with no place to expand. Add the 1,100 foot walk from security to the far end of Concourse C (fortunately, there's so little traffic these days they don't use the far end of Concourse C) and the fact that you have to re-enter security if you're transfering from Concourse A to anywhere else. Then mix in a big helping of no decent food or amenities and you give thanks it's not a hub anymore.

[Maeglin]

One of my favorite airports is Amsterdam's Schiphol.
It's clean, easy to navigate, decent food, nice shopping.

I have to agree. I needed to kill a day at Schiphol. I ended up spending some time at the art museum (!) in the NWA/KLM terminal, ate at a decent pub, and found plenty of space to relax with a book. I probably could have hooked up some bud if I were so inclined.

[pulykamell]

I have to agree. I needed to kill a day at Schiphol. I ended up spending some time at the art museum (!) in the NWA/KLM terminal, ate at a decent pub, and found plenty of space to relax with a book. I probably could have hooked up some bud if I were so inclined.

The other great thing about Schiphol (among 100 others) is that it's so easy to get into town and back if you have a few hours to spare. Last time I was through there was on a 6-hour layover to Johannesburg, and there were no worries about going into town, strolling around for a few hours, and coming back. IIRC, it was only like 20 minutes into town, 30 tops. I mean, it is very much the ideal major airport. Everything is so friendly, bright, and cheery about the place. It's kind of the anti-airport in that regard.

[Ale]

If you have specifics about CdG send me a mail. It's not pretty but, now that I know it better, not the hell hole I once thought it was.

Thanks, Cat Jones, I´ll try to remember the offer later before I travel (I leave on the 21st of January)

[RickJay]

O'Hare always comes up in these threads, but it never struck me as that bad. I mean, it's hard to enjoy an airport, and I don't enjoy O'Hare, but it's easy to get to, has a decent number and quality (by airport standards) of shops and restaurants, there are enough chairs, and the security setup is adequately designed.
I admit I've never understood the hate for O'Hare, either. It's too big, but it's very clean, airy, lots of shops and food. There's way, way worse airports. I've had 40-minute layovers there and made my connection with ease. It's not THAT big; you should be able to walk across it in 20 minutes.

The BEST airport I've been in is Tampa, which was shockingly nice. Great restaurants and shops, very modern and clean.

McCarran in Vegas isn't as nice as Tampa but it's good. San Francisco would be okay if it wasn't for the fact that it takes a week to get to the fucking rental car center. Vancouver is much better than it used to be, with great food available. Ottawa is very nice now, but eat before you go thru security. Atlanta, though far too big, has stuff to keep you well occupied.

And big ups to little Tri City Airport in Bristol, TN, which has free wireless, and it's super fast to boot.

I must have forgotten Washington-Dulles when I wrote the OP. A few weeks ago I arrived 3 hours early and made my flight only by running at top speed through Terminal C. What a fucking hellhole.

[InternetLegend]

I agree that the concept for the Kansas City airport was great. But with today's security, what I didn't like was that once you go through screening to get to the gate waiting area, you're stuck - unless you want to go back through screening all over again. No access to restrooms, food, newsstand - nothing - all of that is in the "non-secure" area.In the spring of 2002, I had the dubious pleasure of shepherding a team of ten pre-teens through that airport. We had to change planes in Kansas City after a long first leg, which meant that the other adult and I had under one hour to herd the kids off one plane, halfway across the airport, and through security into the proper gate area. Also, we were flying Southwest, so we had to get lunch for everyone. Not being insane, we decided to get the kids into the gate area and get their boarding passes (this was pre-internet check-in), then send one person out to bring food back. The security guards were reluctant to let me bring pizzas I'd just bought from the Pizza Hut kiosk that was within plain sight and soft drinks in sealed 16-oz. bottles into the gate area, but they relented when I told them the other option was to have the same ten rambunctious kids they had just managed to check come through yet again. They insisted on sending all the food and the (sealed) drinks through the x-ray machine, though.