Best Airports to travel in, out, or through

[roadman65]

What are the best airports that many of you experienced in your travels from the ground to the friendly skies?

I have to Atlantic City, NJ as it is so small you have hardly any TSA wait and the gates are very close to the ticketing and baggage area.

When it comes to people moving over long distances on the grounds, I have to say Atlanta with its plane train that links the concourses.

[cpzilliacus]

What are the best airports that many of you experienced in your travels from the ground to the friendly skies?

I have to Atlantic City, NJ as it is so small you have hardly any TSA wait and the gates are very close to the ticketing and baggage area.

When it comes to people moving over long distances on the grounds, I have to say Atlanta with its plane train that links the concourses.

Washington Dulles International and Thurgood Marshall Baltimore-Washington International (which I have frequently used) both pretty good. 

Contrary to "what everyone knows," I think London Heathrow is pretty good in spite of very heavy air traffic.

Same with LAX.

I avoid Washington National (DCA) as much as possible.

Airports that I passionately dislike are the three major airports run by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (JFK, EWR and LGA).

[SP Cook]

I live where you have to connect, flying a "little plane" to a bigger place to get on a real plane to go where you really want to go.  In the "through" catagory:

ATL -  Really its huge, but well laid out and easy to understand.  Good bars and restaurants.
DTW - Also well laid out and easy to understand.  Not crowded, but the main terminal has to be the longest in the country, very long walk from one end to the other.
CLT - Small plane terminal is a very long walk from the rest of the airport, and has several sets of wheelchair/stroller unfriedly steps.  Also the little planes have to taxi a very long way to get over to the runways.
DCA - USAirways (Unfortunatly Still Alegheny) uses DCA as a place to connect.  It was not designed for that, and, while a great airport for DC, is awful for connections.
PHL - Treetops also use PHL for connections, particularly international to try to compete with Delta, United and American 's better gateways in NYC and IAD.  Not designed for that, and over-crowded.
ORD - Too big and illogically laid out.  Don't like it.  Grossly over-priced food.

Those are the main airports to connect through around here. 

As far as a destination airport, you cannot beat LAS or MCO.  Especially LAS.  Tourist friendly, well laid out, and near where you really want to be.

[realjd]

Favorites for layovers:
ATL - Best restaurant/bar selection hands-down. Not easy for tight connections however and plan on a good hike between your gate and the Plane Train connecting the concourses. Bonus: Sweetwater Brewery restaurant at B10.
DTW - Simple layout, not too crowded, spotlessly clean. Plus, the Delta SkyClubs have self serve bars.
SLC - Easy connections, rarely any weather problems, fantastic scenery

Least favorite layover airports:
ORD - I've never had a flight leave here on time, and the AA side of the airport is dank and dirty.
LGA - Worst airport in the country. It's inexcusable that the primary domestic airport for one our country's premier cities often requires taking dirty buses out to the plane.
MSP - No matter how many times I fly through here, I always struggle to find my way around.

As for using an airport for O/D flights, I'm going to rule out small airports like MLB, ROC, BTV, etc. They all provide similar experiences. For the big airports, I'd say my favorites are:
SAN - Short lines, nice Sky Club, and a Karl Strauss brewery kiosk. What can I say, I like my beer.  <sarcasm>And I love the easy access to/from the 5!</sarcasm>
DCA - Direct subway access makes this one a winner. Plus the views from the concourses and SkyClub are fantastic.
DEN - Creepy Nazi zombie paintings? Multiple microbrewery restaurants? What's not to like?
DFW - Gate to street in 50 feet
IND - Short lines, gorgeous new facility

Least favorite O/D airports that I haven't mentioned yet:
LAX - Worst TSA lines in the country. The off-site rental cars aren't just off-site, they're in the ghetto
LGA - Mentioned it again because I hate it that much
IAD - I still have nightmares about those "mobile lounges"

In addition to MLB, my other home airport is MCO. It's well laid out and they tend to do a good job with all of the tourist traffic. The sheer number of tourists though makes it obnoxious enough to not be on my favorites list. Although since they installed a TSA PreCheck lane I've been much happier about it.

[J N Winkler]

ORD - I've never had a flight leave here on time, and the AA side of the airport is dank and dirty.

Agreed--if Chicago were not on the great-circle route between London and Wichita, I would avoid it.

LGA - Worst airport in the country. It's inexcusable that the primary domestic airport for one our country's premier cities often requires taking dirty buses out to the plane.

I think airside buses, mobile lounges, etc. should be banned.

MSP - No matter how many times I fly through here, I always struggle to find my way around.

I used it once as a connecting airport between London and Wichita, and rather liked the experience, partly because my layover was long enough for me to take the light rail line in and photograph the newly reconstructed I-35W bridge.  But I do remember having to walk what felt like three sides of a square in order to get from the departures area to the gate for my onward flight to Wichita.

LAX - Worst TSA lines in the country. The off-site rental cars aren't just off-site, they're in the ghetto

To add to that:

*  Hard floors (adds greatly to foot strain when walking long distances and also to visual noise)

*  Corridor congestion

*  A pier layout and a dearth of windows showing the airfield, which gives the interior a very claustrophobic feel

[roadman65]

I would like to add Houston- Hobby as a good airport.  Not a 24 hour airport, though, but street to gate is not that far of a walk.  The only hitch is you must fly Southwest or Airtran to use this facility as the rest must use the Bush Intercontinental Airport located miles north of Houston.  This one is not as far from Houston itself and is convenient via I-45 between the two places.

[realjd]

Agreed--if Chicago were not on the great-circle route between London and Wichita, I would avoid it.

This is probably the points whore in me talking, but my first thought is that connecting through ATL or MIA or someplace off of the great circle route would yield more frequent flyer miles...

DTW should similarly be on or near the great circle route between Wichita and London and is much more pleasant of a connection, and immigration is much nicer.

I think airside buses, mobile lounges, etc. should be banned.

Banned may be a bit strong. ATL has an E-concourse bus gate that's only used due to overcrowding when the weather is bad. When it comes down to it, I'd rather take a bus from a remote stand than be stuck waiting for a gate. The problem is that LGA uses buses as standard procedure. I expect that at third world airports, not a world-class city like New York.

To add to that:

*  Hard floors (adds greatly to foot strain when walking long distances and also to visual noise)

*  Corridor congestion

*  A pier layout and a dearth of windows showing the airfield, which gives the interior a very claustrophobic feel

My other big complaint about LAX is the lack of airside connections. Changing concourses almost always means exiting the sterile area, walking, then reclearing security. That's unacceptable in my book.

[Beltway]

Chicago O'Hare gets it share of criticism, but as someone who has used ORD at least 40 times since the 1960s, and as recently as 2011, I think it does an excellent job, given the heavy usage (#2 or #3 in the nation every year) with the largest aircraft including heavily loaded domestic and international (many modern A/C can and do make Japan and Europe non-stop to/from ORD) range flights.

Ground transportation, ORD has good freeway access and has a CTA rapid rail transit line connecting the downtown and the rest of the system.  Inside the airport is a rail people mover connection to the 4 terminals.

A $10 billion expansion project is underway now.

[corco]

There's only a few airports I use regularly these days:

BOI has a beautiful new terminal and is all around awesome to fly out of.
DEN is kind of a pain in the ass to get to and it's a haul from the door to the gate, but parking is really cheap. Very nice to connect in.
SLC is nice to connect in too- very manageable for a hub.
PHX is fine depending on the terminal. Terminals 2 and 3 suck donkey balls. Terminal 4 is nice. The main issue with Phoenix is that to get between terminals, you have to leave security and go back in- the main time this is a problem is if you're switching airlines on a United/US Air codeshare. All the other typical codeshares are in the same terminal, I think.
SEA is pretty boring. Parking is a pain.
TUS is kind of dumpy for a small airport.

I don't know that I've really flown out of any other airports in the last five or so years. I've connected in SFO, SMF, and LAS, and landed in OAK, but all were un-noteworthy experiences.

[Brandon]

For me,

My favorite local airport is Midway (MDW).  Easy to navigate, and has my favorite airline (SWA).  The food selections are a bit overpriced, but that's common anywhere in $hicago, whether in the airports or the Loop.

O'Hare (ORD) isn't bad, and is a lot better than some of the airports I can name.

Sky Harbor (PHX) is a pretty decent airport, but the Burger King on the north side of Terminal 4 sucks.  Sloppy, slow, and just plain stupid staff.

McCarron (LAS) is a mixed bag.  The main SWA area is clean, but the older parts of the terminal are filthy.

Los Angeles Int'l (LAX) is, by far and away, the worst airport I've been to.  The connections between terminals could be improved (bridges or tunnels like O'Hare would be nice).  The food selections suck, and the TSA folks were the least friendly of any I've seen.

General Mitchell (MKE) is a nice airport.  Clean, neat, friendly (even the TSA staff), and decent food selections.  Plus, the parking price is reasonable.

Meadows Field (BFD), Bakersfield looks like a decent tiny airport.  Didn't get to see much as I landed well after much had closed.

Bob Hope (BUR), Burbank is a nice small airport, but could use some more food selections.  The outdoor baggage pickup caught me as strange.

Washington National isn't bad, but it's been a long time since I went there (1994).

Tampa Int'l is a decent airport, IMHO.  It was clean and neat, and the food selections were decent.

Honolulu Int'l (HNL) is a decent airport, IMHO as well.  Not as much on food, but they were friendly enough upon both entry and exit.

[Mdcastle]

A good start would be airports where I can avoid posing nude for or being sexually assaulted by TSA agents. Beyong that I like MSP a lot, since I always fly out of Terminal 2. I agree Terminal 1 is a mess, it's been growing slowly since WWII, there was a late 1980s proposal to scrap it and build a new airport in Rosemount, then to just rebuild the terminal elsewhere on the current property, but nothing came of them, instead they built a new runway, remodeled and expanded the parking and Terminal 1, and leveled and rebuilt Terminal 2.

Everyone tells horror stories of JFK, but I didn't find it that bad. Had a bad experience renting from Thrifty there though.

IAD has a unique terminal but I didn't like having to take a lounge to get to my gate.

MCO I found particulary attractive. I always rent from Dollar and they were onsite, but a lot of places are a bus ride away

MDW makes me nervous flying too with short runways and building near them, and the TSA agents are sometimes unfriendly, but it's small and clean.

RDU was just OK, and you had to take a bus to the rental cars.

DIA I really liked with the unique terminal and the trains

LAS you step right off the plane and there's slots, and was the only placed that demanded to see my luggage claim slips.

ORF was dated and not on a freeway and laid out funny, but the rental cars were very close and TSA was friendly.

ORD I wasn't to impressed with

SEA appared really dumpy.

[realjd]

Chicago O'Hare gets it share of criticism, but as someone who has used ORD at least 40 times since the 1960s, and as recently as 2011, I think it does an excellent job, given the heavy usage (#2 or #3 in the nation every year) with the largest aircraft including heavily loaded domestic and international (many modern A/C can and do make Japan and Europe non-stop to/from ORD) range flights.

Ground transportation, ORD has good freeway access and has a CTA rapid rail transit line connecting the downtown and the rest of the system.  Inside the airport is a rail people mover connection to the 4 terminals.

A $10 billion expansion project is underway now.

Yet somehow ATL can be the busiest airport in the world, with non-stop flights to 5 continents, yet still maintain better performance numbers than ORD. As dark and nasty as the AA part of ORD is, the real problem is performance. I grudgingly connect through there several times a year and have NEVER had a flight leave within an hour of the scheduled departure. I'm at ATL probably 50 times a year and rarely have significant delays like that.

A terminal expansion, regardless of cost, won't fix ORD's problems. The issue is that they're trying to run a busy multinational hub with minimal runway capacity. ATL can run up to 5 runways at a time; ORD is limited to 2. Unless that expansion includes additional runway capacity, it will continue to be a nightmare.

I'm flying USAir through CLT tomorrow. CLT isn't a bad airport, but I'm in the middle of a string of bad luck where USAir cancels my flight leaving me stranded in CLT. I'm only flying them because they're running sales on tickets to FL and my $600-ish ticket on USAir would be well over $1k on Delta next week.

Direct rail access is ORD's one redeeming factor. MDW is a much nicer airport but is a pain in the ass to get to.

[cpzilliacus]

I think airside buses, mobile lounges, etc. should be banned.

I disagree. They are an integral part of London Heathrow's (LHR) design (and for the most part, seem to work pretty well).

Washington Dulles (IAD) is getting rid of most of them, replacing them with a very expensive underground train system (not to be confused with Dulles Rail (also very expensive)).

But even when the train system is fully phased-in, international arriving passengers will still ride those mobile lounges from the gate to the immigration and customs area to get through U.S. immigration, claim their bags, then go through U.S. Customs.

[Brandon]

^^ That's what the modernization program at O'Hare is to fix.  Right now, they have unusable runways as they cross each other.  When finished, there will be multiple parallel runways: http://www.oharenoise.org/OMP.htm  The orange lines on the map are to be built, the blue is existing, and the yellow is finished.

[cpzilliacus]

Yet somehow ATL can be the busiest airport in the world, with non-stop flights to 5 continents, yet still maintain better performance numbers than ORD. As dark and nasty as the AA part of ORD is, the real problem is performance. I grudgingly connect through there several times a year and have NEVER had a flight leave within an hour of the scheduled departure. I'm at ATL probably 50 times a year and rarely have significant delays like that.

A terminal expansion, regardless of cost, won't fix ORD's problems. The issue is that they're trying to run a busy multinational hub with minimal runway capacity. ATL can run up to 5 runways at a time; ORD is limited to 2. Unless that expansion includes additional runway capacity, it will continue to be a nightmare.

Does ORD have a NIMBY problem that's blocking any consideration of expanded runway capacity?

[realjd]

^^ That's what the modernization program at O'Hare is to fix.  Right now, they have unusable runways as they cross each other.  When finished, there will be multiple parallel runways: http://www.oharenoise.org/OMP.htm  The orange lines on the map are to be built, the blue is existing, and the yellow is finished.

Excellent! That's going to help significantly. Although I don't often fly AA or UA, I may give ORD another shot once the runways are completed. I will also give ORD credit for having toilets with the crazy automatic seat covers that I haven't seen anywhere else.

[Brandon]

Yet somehow ATL can be the busiest airport in the world, with non-stop flights to 5 continents, yet still maintain better performance numbers than ORD. As dark and nasty as the AA part of ORD is, the real problem is performance. I grudgingly connect through there several times a year and have NEVER had a flight leave within an hour of the scheduled departure. I'm at ATL probably 50 times a year and rarely have significant delays like that.

A terminal expansion, regardless of cost, won't fix ORD's problems. The issue is that they're trying to run a busy multinational hub with minimal runway capacity. ATL can run up to 5 runways at a time; ORD is limited to 2. Unless that expansion includes additional runway capacity, it will continue to be a nightmare.

Does ORD have a NIMBY problem that's blocking any consideration of expanded runway capacity?

It's called Elk Grove Village and Bensenville.

[J N Winkler]

This is probably the points whore in me talking, but my first thought is that connecting through ATL or MIA or someplace off of the great circle route would yield more frequent flyer miles...

I haven't actually signed up for a frequent-flyer program.  Perhaps I should have, but I have tended to feel I fly infrequently enough (just two or three air journeys a year) that there would be a real risk of frequent-flyer miles expiring before I could redeem them.

I tend to start with the cheapest ticket for a London-Wichita itinerary and go a bit higher as needed to get just one connection and the shortest overall journey on each leg.  I have connected through ATL, MSP, IAH, and DFW in addition to ORD, but I don't think I have ever been offered a connection through DTW.

I think airside buses, mobile lounges, etc. should be banned.

Banned may be a bit strong. ATL has an E-concourse bus gate that's only used due to overcrowding when the weather is bad. When it comes down to it, I'd rather take a bus from a remote stand than be stuck waiting for a gate. The problem is that LGA uses buses as standard procedure. I expect that at third world airports, not a world-class city like New York.

I wouldn't object to a fleet of airside buses being kept on hand for emergencies, but it should never be the default method of ferrying passengers to the plane.  I firmly believe that passenger transfers between the aircraft and the terminal building should be routinely handled by jetbridge, with each jetbridge connecting to the aircraft and the terminal building at only one point each (to prevent passengers from getting confused and boarding the wrong plane).

My other big complaint about LAX is the lack of airside connections. Changing concourses almost always means exiting the sterile area, walking, then reclearing security. That's unacceptable in my book.

Agreed.  I believe that airport authorities should be penalized for the following:

*  Requiring reclearance of security for terminal transfers (except for international arrivals)

*  Operating security checkpoints near the gate, or at any other location, that has the effect of preventing passengers from taking bottles of water onto the plane that they have refilled themselves with tap water after clearing the empty bottles through a primary security inspection

*  Routine usage of airside buses, mobile lounges, foot journeys across the terminal apron, etc. to transfer passengers between the aircraft and the terminal

Penalties should be imposed in the absence of a remediation plan with definite time commitments and should include the possibility of complete denial of air traffic service even for airports in the 60-million-and-above PATM class.

Yet somehow ATL can be the busiest airport in the world, with non-stop flights to 5 continents, yet still maintain better performance numbers than ORD. As dark and nasty as the AA part of ORD is, the real problem is performance. I grudgingly connect through there several times a year and have NEVER had a flight leave within an hour of the scheduled departure. I'm at ATL probably 50 times a year and rarely have significant delays like that.

I haven't had that particular problem at ORD.  My own experience is that while punctuality is poor, my flights leave ORD on time about half the time.  My real problem with ORD is that in winter, even a moderate snowstorm will result in more than three-quarters of flights (including ones to Wichita) being cancelled, which means I have to rebook, find someplace to sleep, and try again in the morning.  This has happened to me twice in ten years.  The first time the airline sprung for the hotel, but by the second time a few years later, the airlines had done away with that perk, and I had to pay $90 ("distressed passenger rate") at a hotel near the airport.  Having to pay is bad enough, but there is essentially no transport between airport and hotel other than the hotel shuttle, and watching for the hotel shuttle--operating on a frequency of maybe one journey every two hours--is a bit like looking through the wrong end of a telescope.

When the O'Hare modernization program was still in the EIS phase, I remember seeing a display in the airport saying that the increase in runway capacity would cut weather-related delays by more than 80%.  I hope that really does happen.  I think the real reason ORD effectively closes in snowstorms is usually not that the runways have too much snow/ice cover to handle planes, but rather that throughput goes way down, which means that arriving planes have to be given priority so that they don't burn all the way through their fuel reserves in mid-air.

I think airside buses, mobile lounges, etc. should be banned.

I disagree. They are an integral part of London Heathrow's (LHR) design (and for the most part, seem to work pretty well).

I don't understand how you can say that:  all five Heathrow terminals have piers and jetbridges.  Usually transfers between aircraft and terminal are handled by jetbridge; the one occasion my plane had to park at a stand and my fellow passengers and I had to wait for airside buses was many years ago.

Washington Dulles (IAD) is getting rid of most of them, replacing them with a very expensive underground train system (not to be confused with Dulles Rail (also very expensive)).

Fantastic.  This replaces one mistake with another.  Why don't they stick with the basics and build piers and jetbridges?

[Mdcastle]

Yet somehow ATL can be the busiest airport in the world, with non-stop flights to 5 continents, yet still maintain better performance numbers than ORD. As dark and nasty as the AA part of ORD is, the real problem is performance. I grudgingly connect through there several times a year and have NEVER had a flight leave within an hour of the scheduled departure. I'm at ATL probably 50 times a year and rarely have significant delays like that.

A terminal expansion, regardless of cost, won't fix ORD's problems. The issue is that they're trying to run a busy multinational hub with minimal runway capacity. ATL can run up to 5 runways at a time; ORD is limited to 2. Unless that expansion includes additional runway capacity, it will continue to be a nightmare.

Does ORD have a NIMBY problem that's blocking any consideration of expanded runway capacity?

It's called Elk Grove Village and Bensenville.

A town or two in the way didn't stop St. Louis

[cpzilliacus]

I think airside buses, mobile lounges, etc. should be banned.

I disagree. They are an integral part of London Heathrow's (LHR) design (and for the most part, seem to work pretty well).

I don't understand how you can say that:  all five Heathrow terminals have piers and jetbridges.  Usually transfers between aircraft and terminal are handled by jetbridge; the one occasion my plane had to park at a stand and my fellow passengers and I had to wait for airside buses was many years ago.

Sometimes (sometimes) they don't have enough jetways/jetbridges to handle all the flights.  But I was thinking about the airside connections between terminals, which LHR accomplishes with buses.

Washington Dulles (IAD) is getting rid of most of them, replacing them with a very expensive underground train system (not to be confused with Dulles Rail (also very expensive)).

Fantastic.  This replaces one mistake with another.  Why don't they stick with the basics and build piers and jetbridges?

Because the architect of the airport,  Eero Saarinen, did not want any aircraft near the main terminal building. His intent was that they be parked a considerable distance away at midfield terminal buildings.  To change that now would require approval of a lot of people, including the federal National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts.

[corco]

Because the architect of the airport,  Eero Saarinen, did not want any aircraft near the main terminal building.

Reason #5,672 why I don't understand architects

[kphoger]

I've never had problems getting in, out, and through O'Hare in a timely fashion.  In fact, I flew out of O'Hare in December 2001 (just over three months after 9/11), and people were recommending getting to the airport 3½ hours in advance due to heightened security.  It only took me 30 minutes to get from the front door to my seat.  On that trip, it took at least as long to get through Wichita's airport (only 2 lines through security, if both are open).

Atlanta's is HUGE.  If you're connecting there to an international flight, be prepared for a very long trek from one concourse to the other.

Memphis takes the cake for shoddiest I've seen.  I've known more than once person who missed a flight because they couldn't hear the announcement of a gate change.  There's just a general feeling there that they just don't quite know how to run an airport.  I don't know....

I'd say my favorite airport by far, though, is Kansas City.  It feels very relaxed, things aren't too far spread apart, it's just nice all around.

[cpzilliacus]

Because the architect of the airport,  Eero Saarinen, did not want any aircraft near the main terminal building.

Reason #5,672 why I don't understand architects

Keep in mind that Saarinen designed Dulles expressly for jet-powered passenger aircraft (like the DC-8 and the 707), which were very new and very noisy back in the late 1950's.

As I understand it, that is why he did not want the aircraft near the main terminal building, but put the stands for them rather far away (where the mid-field terminals are located today). Note that Saarinen died before Dulles opened, so he never saw the airport in operation.

[Beltway]

Because the architect of the airport,  Eero Saarinen, did not want any aircraft near the main terminal building.

Reason #5,672 why I don't understand architects

Architects and engineering are mutually exclusive.

Ever see highway design plans drawn by an architect?  Back when I worked in road design, we got some good horse laughs when we were given some to review.

[realjd]

I've never had problems getting in, out, and through O'Hare in a timely fashion.  In fact, I flew out of O'Hare in December 2001 (just over three months after 9/11), and people were recommending getting to the airport 3½ hours in advance due to heightened security.  It only took me 30 minutes to get from the front door to my seat.  On that trip, it took at least as long to get through Wichita's airport (only 2 lines through security, if both are open).

Atlanta's is HUGE.  If you're connecting there to an international flight, be prepared for a very long trek from one concourse to the other.

Memphis takes the cake for shoddiest I've seen.  I've known more than once person who missed a flight because they couldn't hear the announcement of a gate change.  There's just a general feeling there that they just don't quite know how to run an airport.  I don't know....

I'd say my favorite airport by far, though, is Kansas City.  It feels very relaxed, things aren't too far spread apart, it's just nice all around.

But MEM has Interstate BBQ. If I'm traveling around lunchtime, I'll sometimes route myself there just for that. Fantastic food.