Re: Getting from LAX, LGB, SNA to hotel, LA Cruise Terminal, and back to airport.

Passports: Home [ Africa ] [ Americas, Australia & Oceania] [ Asia] [ Europe] [ Other documents ]
Travel:[Europe] [ Asia ] [ USA-Canada ] [ Latin-America ] [ Africa ] [ Australia ] [ Carabben ] [ Air ] [Cruises ]

Live chat

Forum

[ Webmail Login ] [ Immigration, Travel Forum Australia | Canada | USA ]

[ Home ][ Group Home ][ Random article ] [ First Article ][ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ Newest Article ]

Re: Getting from LAX, LGB, SNA to hotel, LA Cruise Terminal, and back to airport.

Posted on: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 09:58:06 -0500

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:ppadnTmYQfXwSdTVnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> "John Sisker" wrote in message
> news:3dadnQaj88F3TNTVnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> Mr Travel:
>>
>> I guess I stand corrected. You are actually the second person to say the
>> same thing. Santa Ana Airport, John Wayne Airport, or Orange County
>> Airport, or whatever one chooses to call it, is officially SNA, and is an
>> airport not too far from where we live. We have flown out of SNA quite a
>> few times, but always just to LAX for any cross-country flights. I guess
>> size could have a number of meanings... one being flights and passengers
>> per day, or the physical size of the airport itself, now many carries
>> frequent that airport, and yet another, the future expansion
>> capabilities.
>>
>> For now, I will accept your explanation that SNA is actually bigger than
>> LGB. I don't think this is a major debate point anyway. However, from my
>> understanding, Long Beach Airport has much more room for expansion than
>> Santa Ana Airport, which was already expanded a few years back. Of
>> course, even then, I don't know if this would change how one wants to
>> compare airports to one another, especially if one is looking for one
>> carrier over another.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Happy sailing...
>> John Sisker - SHIP-TO-SHORE CRUISE AGENCY (sm)
>> (714) 536-3850 or toll-free at (800) 724-6644 & (Agency ID: 714.536.3850)
>> www.shiptoshorecruise.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Mr Travel" wrote in message
>> news:4849836d$0$7692$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> John Sisker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael,
>>>>
>>>> While Long Beach Airport (LGB) is indeed smaller that Los Angeles
>>>> International (LAX), Santa Ana Airport (SNA) is smaller yet. However,
>>>> SNA is closer to attractions such as Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm,
>>>> but much further away from the Port of Los Angeles (San Pedro) for your
>>>> Princess Cruise.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> SNA is not smaller than LGB
>>
>
> Long Beach Airport used to have great prices when both Alaska and American
> flew in there. Then American dropped it, and the prices doubled
> overnight. When daughter was at LB State Univ, was great for a while, then
> we flew into LAX or drove.
>

Decades ago, I used LGB frequently, flying in for naval Reserve duty when
the Navy still "occupied" Long Beach. After retirement, I kept using the
airport until the number of direct flights and connections from Texas
diminished with AA's reductions/departure. It was convenient, easy in/out,
quick car rentals, and for business on LA's "Southern Tier" held some
advantages. Doesn't the subway/metro/"Blue Line" run there or nearby from
Downtown LA now? Not that I would venture aboard unfamiliar with the
service, but all too familiar with the socioeconomic perspectives of most
South LAians.

Back then SNA, usually known as "Orange County", was an airport generally
devoted to general aviation with commuter service to LAX (and a couple of
nearby airports served by major airlines). The world changed as Orange
County mushroomed in population and business, and there's now a fair amount
of direct service to/fm SNA. I suspect the location of Disneyland helped
the airlines to start service. No parent of sound mind really looked
forward to dealing with kids and rental cars and the freeways at LAX.

I've never been a fan of LAX, one of those places to avoid, even when
changing planes, always seeming to require more effort than anywhere else
(or as much). I've become accustomed to BUR, with a daughter living in
Sherman Oaks, but now she's moved further West, but it's still more
convenient, even to Woodland Hills.

The current problems for commercial air carriers will inevitable reduce
service into airports like BUR, a real shame, because for all it's quaintly
antique facilities and rough edges, it "makes sense", the greatest
justification for an airport. Meanwhile, like ORD, LAX reminds me of a
spontaneous abortion of multiple foeti, physically, psychologically and
emotionally. At least coming and going to ORD, one can save money, buy a
newspaper and ride the train, a trip which even in near-rush hour reveals
that for all their faults, Chicagoans are relatively civilized users of
urban transit. I can't imagine why anyone traveling into or from the Loop,
except for those loaded with baggage , would ride in taxi/limo to save a few
minutes, when the transit is more comfortable and allows views of a sort of
semi-seamy underbelly of the city.

ATL's fine for changing planes, but the monstrous bottlenecks created by the
only two ways in out intimidates me for any departure. The last time I was
there was to pick up two small kids, tennish, great niece and nephew,
arriving along from Denver with two tiny Jack Russell pups "carry-ons",
another resounding bit of great decision-making by their mother, a great
marketer, but of dysfunctional capacity for planning her children's lives.
I'd have rather been stranded in the New York subway during a flood with
sparks flying from the grounded rails....

The best named airport? Milan's "Malpensa", which I translate as "Bad
Thought", the sort of feelings I get when nearing any large airport....

TMO

[ Home ][ Group Home ][ Random article ] [ First Article ][ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ Newest Article ]