Follow LA Observed on Twitter here
L.A. Times letters editor Paul Thornton tries to work up a blog defense of LAX in response to criticism from San Francisco. But the effort lands a bit short of the runway. He acknowledges some of the well-known flaws — dirty bathrooms, cramped facilities, less-than-seamless transiting, poor concessions, confusing signage — and then offers his best but on the other hand rebuttal:
The crux of my defense is this: Though LAX lacks the impressive (and expensive) international terminal, world-class cuisine and high-end retail found in, say, San Francisco's airport, it has what ought to be the envy of most major hubs: an impressive roster of low-cost carriers to complement the largest number of international flights on the West Coast. It also demolishes San Francisco on punctuality, thanks to SFO's crisscross runway layout that brings operations nearly to a halt in foggy weather.
That's it. He's right, by the way, about San Francisco's relatively new international terminal. Gleaming and efficient. To be fair, I noticed recently that LAX Terminal 2 doesn't put forth quite as embarrassing a face as in the recent past. There's now a smattering of L.A. traveler info for international passengers outside customs on the arrival level. The Starbucks is decent as well, but it's the only choice for refreshment.
Previously on LA Observed:
LAX as metaphor for America's decline