Best is AMS, FRA and MUC are also pretty good. Worst are LHR and CDG.

Considering I almost always fly non-stop out of MSP, I might not have the best opinions on this but for the few times I have connected in other cities I can say that connecting in PHX and ATL is very nice because the airports have a layout that makes connecting between concourses very easy. Least favorite by FAR is JFK. I flew MSP-JFK-MAD and it was the worst experience of my life. Ever since then, whenever I fly to Europe I always fly MSP-AMS-XXX.

I detest connecting, and will do everything in my power to avoid it.
Having said that, I like Narita - it feels modern, exotic, efficient.

Cannot stand the US megahubs (I'm looking at you, ATL and DFW), but I have to admit that DTW, is very workable design and experience. I've been pleasantly surprised.

I have connected at PDX, SFO, LAX, PHX, SLC, DEN, DFW, IAH, STL, ORD, MSP, DTW, ATL, IAD, BWI, and PIT in the U.S., and along with my other O&D airports I have flown to/from, I will say most are satisfactory, given that I tend to map these things out beforehand.

Number one most important issue: signage. Most airports seem to have gotten this pretty good, especially hub airports. DFW did a really good job letting people know their best option for connecting with the SkyLink interactive system. I'll leave my issues with their evening operations for another time.

Number two most important issue: post-security facilities. Are there sufficient places to go for food and/or general waiting? I've waited in many airports that were quite simply fabulous places - United at ORD was a beautiful place, and MSP has always been a fascinating place to do a LONG walk before going to sit on an airplane for hours on end!

Sadly, I have found FRA to be very poorly marked. Getting around wasn't as clear as I would have hoped - signage didn't match expectations. ZRH, on the other hand, is utterly fabulous and effortless, and this would be my number one choice for changing planes in Europe.

Munich, hands down. Incredibly efficient and easy.

Both my connections in ATL were quick and seamless, including arriving, clearing customs, and rechecking my bag in under 20 minutes. Fortunately never had a bad connection experience that was the fault of the airport (booked some tight connections though) but I remember CLT being kind of annoying for whatever reason.

Best— Detroit. Great layout love all the natural light.

Worst— CDG. Never check your luggage on connections at CDG. One look out your planes window and you’ll see why— utterly chaotic vehicle transportation.

DEN is my local airport so I’ve never connected there. But I have to imagine it would be one of the best.

Lucky that Denver is a major hub, so connecting is rare for me, but I have connected at: IAH, MIA, ATL, BWI, ORD, DTW, YYZ, FRA, ORY, CDG, BOM, and SVO.

DTW wins hands down. Love connecting there.

I never want to connect at CDG again.

My best connection experience so far has been Copenhagen, a very efficient airport. But I have to admit I didn't connect very much, so there's little comparison.

I've heard bad stories about Paris Charles de Gaulle, London Heathrow and New York JFK, those seem to be the worst connecting airports. No personal experience, I just avoid those airports whenever I can (and that's always possible). Worst personal experience is Barcelona. Not really bad, but it could have been better.

Amsterdam seems to be a very good connecting airport, but since it's my local airport I've never connected there.

Best - HKG or SIN.
Worst - LAX

Luckily LHR is my local (long haul) airport, so I've never had to connect through there. But I can imagine that connections which involve changing terminals is no fun.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

My best connection experience so far has been Copenhagen, a very efficient airport. But I have to admit I didn't connect very much, so there's little comparison.

I agree, I've done it a couple of times in CPH and it has always worked great.

Bad
CDG (nothing good here, strikes and often rude with it also), LHR (airport layout does not help), FRA (signage confusing, slow security, bus to gates slow), ORD ( no fun changing terminals here, weather delays) MAN ( a security nightmare).

Good

All in Asia, I am afraid. SIN, HKG, Osaka and Seoul all good but I hear good reports of Munich and Zurich, not used for transit recently.

I've connected in CDG, YUL, and YYZ. All of them were fine. I like the fact that you don't have to clear immigration/customs and security in CDG when flying INTL-INTL, unless you choose to leave the airport and visit the city on a long layover.

Apparently INTL-DOM connection have gotten easier at the big Canadian airports and you don't have to re-clear security when coming from many INTL airports. Sounds good to me.

Flying from YHZ, I need to connect somewhere to get to most INTL destinations. There are more options than there used to be, but options are still pretty limited.

I have connected at CDG, LHR, ATL, DTW, CLT, DFW, ORD, STL, SFO, YUL, YYZ, XMN, KWI, IST, MXP, ZRH, LIS, SGN, DMK

Best: DTW, YUL, CLT
Worst: LHR, CDG

New connection airports coming this year are HEL, PHL, MIA

CDG gets hated on a lot, but it's way better than it used to be. Still not great, though.

DTW and MSP are both nice. SIN is impressive.

I think my worst recent experience was MEL (domestic to international). LAX can be OK or dreadful depending on your connection. FRA likewise, signage can be tricky.

After logging my 600d flight last week, here are my 2 cents worth:

EUROPE:

Best: AMS, VIE
Worst: CDG, MAD

US:

Best: IAH
Worst: IAD (

ASIA:

Best: KIX
Worst: GMP (I know, it's basically Domestic now)

I fly exclusively DL and I will pay extra (within reason) or take an earlier/later flight to connect at DTW instead of MSP. DTW is modern, efficient, well-laid-out and beautiful. MSP is the ninth circle of airport hell.

After logging my 600d flight last week, here are my 2 cents worth:

EUROPE:

Best: AMS, VIE
Worst: CDG, MAD

US:

Best: IAH
Worst: IAD (

ASIA:

Best: KIX
Worst: GMP (I know, it's basically Domestic now)

When connecting, I consider ease of navigation and airport ops most important factors.

USA:
Best: DFW, DEN
Worst: SFO, ORD, EWR, JFK

International:
Best: TPE
Worst: LHR, PEK

LH748 wrote:

I have connected at CDG, LHR, ATL, DTW, CLT, DFW, ORD, STL, SFO, YUL, YYZ, XMN, KWI, IST, MXP, ZRH, LIS, SGN, DMK

Best: DTW, YUL, CLT
Worst: LHR, CDG

New connection airports coming this year are HEL, PHL, MIA

Never in AMS? You should try it, IMHO one of the best airports.

smallmj wrote:

I like the fact that you don't have to clear immigration/customs and security in CDG when flying INTL-INTL, unless you choose to leave the airport and visit the city on a long layover.

That's not my experience with CDG, one of the worst airports. Had to change terminals which was a nightmare. Collect and recheck luggage, never again! Info was only available in French which I don't speak. Nobody at this airport speaks descent English.

I would say my worst experience connecting was in CDG- connecting on one ticket from AF to OK required a terminal change, 2 security checks, and immigration, which we could barely do in the 1.5 hour connection that we were scheduled for.
I would probably have to pick ZRH as my best connecting experience- I was somehow able to make my Schengen to US connection despite a 30 minute delay on the inbound flight and a 55 minute connection time.

Not a fan of BOS or DFW, both of which can have long walks in between flights, and large parts of both airports have the feel of a crowded bus station.

Jutlander wrote:

That's not my experience with CDG, one of the worst airports. Had to change terminals which was a nightmare. Collect and recheck luggage, never again! Info was only available in French which I don't speak. Nobody at this airport speaks descent English.

Yeah a terminal change would be a real hassle. I was flying AF YYZ-CDG-DKR and it was all in terminal 2. The key to managing the language barrier is to try a little French. Once they discover that you aren't an arrogant Anglophone you'll find Francophones much easier to communicate with.

(btw, when complaining about other folk's language skills, make sure that you know the difference between decent and descent )

smallmj wrote:

Yeah a terminal change would be a real hassle. I was flying AF YYZ-CDG-DKR and it was all in terminal 2. The key to managing the language barrier is to try a little French. Once they discover that you aren't an arrogant Anglophone you'll find Francophones much easier to communicate with.

So then I am the arrogant Anglophone, but why is this never a problem outside France? Why can't the French accept that their language is just a local language for their country only. There is only one world language, that's English. Every country except for France agrees with that. When I connect in AMS they don't expect me to speak Dutch either. I have also connected in MAD and FCO, they don't expect me to speak Spanish or Italian. Even when I connect in FRA or MUC I don't need to speak German (I can, but I could get away with English if I wanted to).

If nobody except the French insist on foreigners speaking their local language, then who is arrogant?

Jutlander wrote:

So then I am the arrogant Anglophone, but why is this never a problem outside France? Why can't the French accept that their language is just a local language for their country only. There is only one world language, that's English. Every country except for France agrees with that. When I connect in AMS they don't expect me to speak Dutch either. I have also connected in MAD and FCO, they don't expect me to speak Spanish or Italian. Even when I connect in FRA or MUC I don't need to speak German (I can, but I could get away with English if I wanted to).

If nobody except the French insist on foreigners speaking their local language, then who is arrogant?

It is a problem in many places outside of France, though I've only experienced it in French speaking countries. I see the same attitude in whenever I go to Quebec, though not so much at the airport. Hurray for Canadian official bilingualism in federally regulated services.

I had a very interesting time getting through customs/immigration in DKR a few years back. In France many people will switch to English once they discover that their English is better than my French, especially if I put in a token effort. In Dakar the airport staff didn't speak a work of English.

I used the phrase "arrogant Anglophone" mostly because I was thinking of an old supervisor of mine. He adamantly refused to speak any French when we at a conference in Quebec City and did it in such a way that offended every local that he talked to. We did not get good service in restaurants.

I agree that it would be better if staff in CDG were more willing to speak English and friendlier about it. But they aren't. So if we travellers are able meet them part way by trying a bit of French then things will likely go better for us.

Good:
SIN, great food options, and comfortable waiting areas. Stayed for 12 hours at SIN on a connection once, and had no problems. T3 is by far the best place I have connected. T2 isn't as good as T3, but still top-notch.
ATL, airport was clean and easy to navigate, can't say much more as my connection was short. Only visited once, so small sample size.

Bit of both:
CAN, before 2018, it was horrible and in the 'bad' section, but I think it's improved in 2018, with shorter queues, and easier navigation. Food is bad if you're looking for Western food, but OK if you like Chinese food. I think the experience at CAN really depends on your luck on the day you connect.

Bad:
LAX, long immigration queues, crowded, no terminal transfer. Also, very crowded. Only visited once, so small sample size.

Although I have connected at HKG, I can't say much about it, as I have not visited for many years.
I have not connected at my home airport (BNE), but I think it would be decent for connections, not the best, but good enough.
Out of other airports I have visited but not connected at, I can say that it doesn't look fun connecting at LHR, CDG, or PEK. AMS seems good for connections though.

Lightning12 wrote:

Bad:
LAX, long immigration queues, crowded, no terminal transfer. Also, very crowded. Only visited once, so small sample size.

T8 through T4 and TBIT are now connected after security.

I am actually quite happy with the set up of LAX as it is always a short walk from curb to gate. As the world largest O&D airport, LAX was not designed with connecting passengers in mind.

Going to and from Australia, i go through DFW and avoid LAX like the plague.

Best: AMS.

And that’s saying something - because my home airport is served by KLM Cityhopper Embraers, so I will always start or end my trip with a short hop and a bus from the ‘Fokker Farm’ to the dedicated UK regional bus gates at D06. It’s a testament to the organisation and efficiency of AMS and KL that even a bus gate can’t spoil the experience.

Plus - AMS has a sense of surprise and delight. Little things like the beautiful animated ‘painted’ clock in the non-Schengen area.

Worst: LHR, on maybe LAX. Probably any US hub with the exception of MSP and DTW, although I found a long transit there very tedious - same old tired food and retail as most US airports.

AMS and (from what I’ve heard) SIN should be examples of how a transit airport can be efficient and also delightful for weary travellers.

Jutlander wrote:

Never in AMS? You should try it, IMHO one of the best airports

I've flown from AMS to XMN on MF before so I did experience it (even though not as a transit passenger) and can definitely see why people like it so much.

My prime criteria in answering this question are: bathroom cleanliness, food selection, quiet areas, ease of ingress/egress, and of course runway visibility.


America

Best = DTW (spacious & well-lit)
Worst = ORD terminal 5 (cramped and boring)

Europe

Best = AMS (despite the endless construction), or FRA (lots of international heavies and excellent runway visibility)
Worst = CDG (need I say more ?)

As others have said, LAX is a right pain to transit through, especially if you're coming off an international flight & have to change terminals....

DFW was easy to connect through, considering it's size.

IAH was another PITA to connect. I had a 4 hour layover on an international to international connection. With a 2 hour wait in immigration, and another hour or so in the TSA queue, I was starting to worry that I'd miss my connection. A similar international connection in AKL on the same trip was a much simpler security screening that took all of 2 minutes with no queue......

Best:BWI
Worst:JFK

hoons90 wrote:

Munich, hands down. Incredibly efficient and easy.

minus the 45 minutes waiting for your bag if it is your final destination

I have done them all ...

Fail ORD ..international terminal separated from the rest equals fail
Fail . IAD ... just horrendous
Fail DEN ... security control from international to domestic is a nightmare
Fail FRA ... Germans can be brilliant and stupid ... the airport is set up by the stupid people. (don't flame me, I am married to a German).

Win .. SIN ... just a brilliant airport
Win... PVG ... the Chinese know how to move people
Win...ZRH .. an easy transit with great passport and security control
Win...HNG .. let's face it, the Asians know what they are doing..

ARN is horrible for international/non-Schengen to domestic/Schengen connections and vice versa. It is cramped, long-winded, as you are basically completely checking out and then checking in of the airport and with insufficient space in airport security.

I've done enough that I'll only list ones I remember as particularly good or bad on a consistent basis (hence airports I've connected at only once are excluded by definition):

Good: DEN, CPH, CHC, OSL, CLT. DEN is probably my favorite: the layout is easy, it's not enormous, and the flights usually arrive and depart close to timely. Much better connecting there than O&D.

Bad: ATL, EWR, DUB, CDG. Worst: CDG. EWR is a close second. I refuse to fly through either unless I have essentially no alternative.

smallvoyageur wrote:

ARN is horrible for international/non-Schengen to domestic/Schengen connections and vice versa. It is cramped, long-winded, as you are basically completely checking out and then checking in of the airport and with insufficient space in airport security.

It's horrible getting onto a non-Schengen flight even if you're not connecting. I've never seen any other EU airport that has anywhere near the trouble processing people through exit immigration.

It's also about how difficult you make it too. A 45 min connection in CDG or FRA and there's reasonable chance you're going to come unstuck. Plus the time of day can make a difference and where you're travelling to or from too. I've had a very easy pleasant transfer at CDG, but I've also had one that would make the Pope swear.

Unlike some posts I'm not listening to gossip or speculation read somewhere or other, so the following is purely on my personal and actual experience in the past few years only.

SYD -
Domestic to Domestic DTD excellent
International to Domestic ITD excellent
International to International ITI tedious not good
MEL -
DTD very good
ITD very good
PER -
ITD ok but hard work
DTI slightly better
BNE -
DTD very good
AKL -
DTD ok
SIN -
ITI pretty good
HKG -
ITI ok but a lot of walking potentially prefered SIN
DXB -
ITI ok but not enjoyable
FRA -
DTD very good
DTI not smooth or quick
ITI pain the **** actively avoid
MUC -
ITD pretty good
TXL -
ITD and DTI ...not too easy given the layout as long
as you allow time
CDG -
ITI ....50/50 generally had more good than bad, but
bad was lousy. OK to a point prvoided you've plenty
of time between flights
AMS -
ITI very good can't complain
VIE -
ITI generally pretty good
LHR -
DTI prefectly alright no problems
LCY -
DTI OK poor airport facilities though
EDI -
DTD easy enough
DUB -
ITI wouldn't rush to do it again.
GVA -
DTI OK nothing special but pick the wrong time of
day it might not be so
ZRH -
ITI very easy
ITD very easy too
MAD -
ITI ok so long as they're the same terminal. Bit
protacted otherwise

Best for me would either be DTW, ATL, and CLT. All of them are easy to navigate and I've made some short, short connections at them and still ran fine.

While many people do NOT do this, the worst connecting airport for me is MCO (don't ask how this happened). You basically have to go through security again no matter who you connect to and have to take a tram to/from the air-side terminals. Thankfully I only did this once and most people do not do this as MCO is a large O&D airport. It's also the airport I've flown into/out of the most.

I've always tried, whenever possible, to do connections in the smallest possible airports. VIE used to be absolutely perfect, with short walking distances and a lounge conveniently placed half-way between the EU arrival and long-haul departures. 40 minute connections sans luggage was perfectly possible and stress-free. It's not always possible to avoid large(er) hubs, and I've found MUC followed by ZRH and CPH to be perfectly acceptable options, due to their high degree of efficiency. FRA, HKG and SIN are examples of effortless transfer, but they're just so bloody big it becomes a distraction - the distance in FRA can be epic (A34 arrival for an E20 departure, anyone?), and HKG's hardly on the small side either!

Connection in MIA was the worst experience I've had, followed closely by CDG. Generally find multi-terminal airports annoyingly inefficient, but appreciate the attraction for airlines primarily catering to a different and much larger market.

smallmj wrote:

So if we travellers are able meet them part way by trying a bit of French then things will likely go better for us.

Maybe they should simply shut down the zoo if they have such a huge problem dealing with the fact that English is the global language of (not only) aviation.

CDG and FRA are places I prefer to avoid, LHR also.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

Best: MSP, DTW, and BWI

Worst: ORD and LAX.

I absolutely hate ORD, avoid it at all costs. I won’t ever do a domestic to international connection again through there.

LAX is really just because of bad luck, I’ve yet to make a successful connection through LAX after 3 attempts. It just leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

US best DTW and worst ORD (dom to int'l)
Europe best MUC and worst CDG

BAH can be very easy to use-sometimes it's a short walk or bus ride to the very small security area. If it's not a busy time and quick, you can be back to the departures area in a few minutes. No concourses or long walks, and the airport has a very cozy feel.
I was a big fan of the old DOH as well-compact and quick, except you were guaranteed a bus gate as old DOH didn't have any jetways connected to the terminal. Everything was super organized, they had different colored boarding pass holders: blue for those terminating in DOH, yellow or transit passengers and orange for quick transits.
I used VIE once as a transit passenger-didn't have to go through security (was arriving from the US) and I had a long 7-hour layover. Luckily there was a lounge I could use for a quick bite and a shower, for just 20 euros. There was enough to keep me occupied for the layover. I've also used VIE for O&D and it is hands down the most compact/efficient airport I've used ever.

For me:
The best: JFK
The worse: Dubai followed very closely by Charlotte

In South America, I strongly dislike GRU...connecting from international to domestic or viceversa is a pain...bad signage, lonk walking, rude staff...
On the other hand, SCL is my favourite.

I do not have the worst since I enjoy all airports when transit, but the new terminal in Oslo Gardermoen has become amazing to transit.

For domestic connection
Best: ORD
Worst: ATL
International connection from US
Best: SFO
Worst: LAX
International connection to US
Best: SFO
Worst: EWR
Overall connections
Best: ORD or BKK
Worst: LAX or CDG