AAplatnumflier From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2716 times:
Which airport is better to go through if you are coming from out west, i.e. Asia, Austrailia, Hawaii and other places out West. Also which airport handles the most of those routes??
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7634 posts, RR: 28 Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2698 times:
If you're coming transpac from Asia, SFO is by far the better destination. The international terminal is brand new, the airport has superb transit connections to the city - and getting to the other terminals is easy thanks to the AirTrain system.
On the other hand, LAX has the lion's share of routes overall, especially from Australia.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2673 times:
Living in San Francisco, I'm naturally biased towards SFO....
That being said, SFO is much smaller and as A.747 said, the international terminal is new, and it costs only $15 ($20 with tip) to take a shuttle van downtown (just took it yesterday..and actually take it all the time) from the airport
..since the airport is smaller, its quicker to get around towards other terminals and the AirTrain is very easy and convenient...also, the TSA agents and screeners are not that bad (believe it or not).....
Jfrworld From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 362 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2600 times:
SFO all the way. SFO has pretty much all of the Asian/Trans Pacific Routes couvered through UA or the other Asian Airlines - Singapore Airlines, Asiana, Korean Airlines, JAL, ANA, Cathay Pacific.
The international terminal is brand new and very efficient. If you need to connect to a domestic flight, its actually quite easy to move from terminal to terminal. I would recommend SFO over LAX.
Kc10fish From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 12 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2570 times:
if you like waiting for ATC go to SFO. LAX by far is the better with less delay's! good luck. Please note that winter is not to good for SFO flow.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8739 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2564 times:
For Hawaii I would say LAX because domestic connections are easy if you stay with the same airline as the terminals are so separate. Also there are very few delays because weather is almost perfect in LA. It isn't that bad of an airport to fly out of because since the terminals are so spread out, you don't have to deal with huge messy crowds (unless you fly out with HP or WN ).
For international, SFO is much much better. Connections are a lot easier and the international terminal is wonderful. Also dealing with TBIT at LAX is horrible, UA connections are better, but SFO is by far better, and is about 20-30 minutes flight time closer to just about anywhere in Asia. The only problem is persistent fog and low visibility which causes delay headaches which might cause you to see more and spend more time at the airport then you could ever want-I've done it.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
TonyBurr From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 983 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2551 times:
I admit I prefer SFO (and I am not from San Francisco). Great terminal and you seem to get through Immigration/Customs quickly. Having said that I have not often gone through LAX and did not have bad experiences. I just prefer SFO.
Legacyins From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1832 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2521 times:
As stated above, it is faster to clear Immigration/Customs formalities at SFO as compared to LAX. I have been through LAX on International flights twice, at TBIT and terminal 4, and the wait was too long to bear. The weather delays at SFO are no worse than a Nor Easterner through the East Coast or a snow storm at ORD. International flights have priority landing and remain remarkably on schedule.
N1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2429 times:
As far as the dominant airport goes, LAX has twice the passengers and is one of the world's busiest cargo airports. SFO has more of a "hub" set up, while LAX is the ultimate O&D airport. Also, I have seen the T4 customs lines and they are insane, AA just did not plan right for having 2 QF 747s in at the same time, but I have flown many times into Bradley and T2 with little delay.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
OzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4680 posts, RR: 23 Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2309 times:
Jsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1857 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2255 times:
For sheer volume of international flights, LAX definitely beats out San Francisco. LAX has several overseas carriers that SFO does not - Alitalia, Swiss, Aer Lingus, Air Tahiti Nui, Qantas, Air Pacific, Malaysia Airlines, Thai, China Eastern, China Southern, Varig, Avianca, LAN, Aero California and many more all serve Los Angeles.
SFO's fortunes have been on the upswing lately, though - Air New Zealand recently started service, Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines restarted flights in the last two years and both Vietnam Airlines and Emirates are rumored to be favoring SFO over LAX for their first West Coast flights.
United has also scaled back much of its LAX-Asia flying since 9/11, and hasn't restarted many former routes. They've been steadily rebuilding their SFO-Asia operations though, and now serve (correct me if I'm wrong) Tokyo, Osaka, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Taipei, with Nagoya coming soon.
COEWR2587 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 603 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2227 times:
I would have to LAX IMO. It seems to serve almost every place or airline.
N1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2042 times:
>Alitalia, Swiss, Aer Lingus, Air Tahiti Nui, Qantas, Air Pacific, Malaysia Airlines, Thai, China Eastern, China Southern, Varig, Avianca, LAN, Aero California <
While AZ has stated they are thinking of comming back to LAX, they still have not. LAX and SFO lost AZ service at the same time. Also, Avianca has not served LAX for a while now
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
UALAX From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 143 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2031 times:
>Alitalia, Swiss, Aer Lingus, Air Tahiti Nui, Qantas, Air Pacific, Malaysia Airlines, Thai, China Eastern, China Southern, Varig, Avianca, LAN, Aero California <
Aeronuts From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1955 times:
Back to original post, the question is travel from the Far East (not the West, unless you're from Hawaii), I would say LAX has more options from the Far East. SFO has neither Air Tahiti Nui, Malaysia Air, China Eastern nor China Southern.
If you're coming from China (including Hong Kong), Japan, Korea, Philippine, Thailand, then SFO is better, as the terminal is new and access to/from the airport is a bit better than LAX. Finally BART has connected to SFO. Last checked, LA Metro rail has yet a line into LAX.
I must respectfully disagree with kc10fish. Since the scale back by UAL and all the majors, the ATC approach and weather delay issue faced during the dot.bomb days are long gone. The delays in SFO these days are no worst then any other major hub airports. I believe in the latest survey, SFO has actually dropped off the top 5 worst list.
Baw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1995 posts, RR: 31 Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1911 times:
Most of the routes arrive into LAX.
The preferred airport for arrivals, however is SFO. The new IT is not anywhere near the capacity it can handle, so immigration and customs formalities are pretty fast. With BART to the city, you can get pretty much anywhere in the Bay Area without having to use a cab out of the airport.
Air NZ now operates a AKL-SFO nonstop, UA still operates SYD-SFO nonstop.
Also, a reminder...if you are going to the US east coast, you can fly SYD-HNL, transit customs there and then go nonstop to the east coast (CO to EWR, DL to ATL). Since SYD-HNL is only about 10 hours, and HNL to US east coast is 7 to 8, the trip is broken up better than going to the west coast, then doing the 4.5 hour flight to the east coast (which feels like 10).
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
Aeronuts From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1704 times:
"plus you dont see a show on NBC called SFO now do you?"
UA744KSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1689 times:
SFO is much easier for inter-line connections because of the monorail system. Also, the new international terminal is great and has a lot of waiting room (it has two levels). SFO also has a better ground transporation system serving it.
LAX has more airlines serving it, and it isn't as prone to fog delays as SFO. Other than that, I just don't see many more advantages that LAX has over SFO.
FLY2LIM From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1183 posts, RR: 11 Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1661 times:
I must respectfully disagree with kc10fish. Since the scale back by UAL and all the majors, the ATC approach and weather delay issue faced during the dot.bomb days are long gone. The delays in SFO these days are no worst then any other major hub airports. I believe in the latest survey, SFO has actually dropped off the top 5 worst list.
That is, until the fog rolls in and then you cannot land and take off two abreast. They are battling to extend the runways into the bay for this reason. I don't have statistics but I don't believe that things are any better at SFO because of the weather.
Leamside From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 443 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1622 times:
With the recent installation of the $20 million dollar Precision Runway Monitor and the Systemized Offset Instrument Approach (PRM/SOIA) say goodbye to much of the landing delays at SFO. Dual landings now possible even in bad weather! The Queen is now King
Legacyins From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1832 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1569 times:
There is a very little chance those runways will ever be built. Passenger levels are still way below 2000 levels. The airport may try to reconfigure the runways but in reality the real problem is the amount of traffic into SFO at certain times cannot be realized by the present runway configuration.
Modesto2 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2634 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1522 times:
SFO's international terminal is beautiful! Plus, clearing immigration/customs is seamless. I've never flown international from LAX, but I sure love SFO!
United Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 8792 posts, RR: 17 Reply 25, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1481 times:
Isn't LAX a MUCH busier airport???? Also they have a lot more flights right?
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7634 posts, 
). 
From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4491 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1886 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 8792 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
