I helped build that back in the day

Compared to all of the other annoying aspects of air travel, airport luxury level is probably 30th on the list.

SIN and ICN are by far the nicest airports I've visited. They put anything in the States to shame.

Hoyt Ag said:

---

Its not just Europe but in Asia too. Our airports suuuuck.

---

It's the management and workers that Suck. The Airport in Salt Lake City is Always very Clean and well run.

Houston IAH is always Filthy and Ridiculous. It's almost like they hire Pigs to clean and manage the airport.

Who gives a flying fork what it looks like? Point A to point B efficiently. I don't need to be made to feel like a high maintenance woman while doing it.

GAC06 said:

---

DFW was designed when parking and walking right to your gate made sense. With security, and the growth in number of terminals it doesn't make sense. You drive through a ton of airport which is inefficient and pointless with better designs. Then you hunt for a parking spot in whichever garage is at whatever terminal you happen to be assigned (unless it changes, oops) instead of a more efficient setup. Also, better hope it's not full or you're driving to another terminal to hunt, then navigating back to the place you wanted to be. Then when you return, if you checked a bag you better hope you're lucky enough to return to the same terminal or you're heading to the curb to wait for a bus to get back to your terminal garage then start navigating your way out of the airport. Kansas City had the same setup that aged like milk. They were small enough to be able to level it and build a modern terminal that makes sense now, not one that made sense in the 70's. There's a reason nobody is building airports in the style of MCI or DFW these days. DFW is just stuck with their crap design because it would be way too expensive to fix it.

---

Comparing DFW and MCI is a riot. You're talking about the 2nd busiest and the 40th in the US. And yes MCI was terrible and could not deal with post 9/11 due to it's size. DFW did not have the same problem. Other than being semi circular in nature they were not really close to the same thing. DFW had plenty of space to have checkin and security and had inner concourses separate already. They simply had to add security checkpoints between the outer concourse and inner concourse. MCI was so small they had to basically put up a partition running the length of the concourse that was severely narrow and cramped. I've flown there a few times so yeah it was terrible. And they had never expanded or changed really until the rebuild. The new terminal is 40 gates TOTAL. Comparable to one of the DFW terminals so of course it's more efficient. Try that design for 5 times as many gates.

But DFW has expanded since the 70s with Terminal D - a different design for that one terminal but the airport layout is still the same. Terminal F will add another terminal and different design. The genius of DFW is that it is expandable like that and updates or expansion don't affect every terminal and all passengers the way a single head house for all checkin security and baggage do. Not to mention the miles and miles and miles you have to walk through those designs. The way you can park and be at bag check in 2 minutes and then be off your plane and at your baggage carousel in 2 minutes or curbside if you did not check bags is unparalleled in any major airport.

I've flown out of DFW (and Love) hundreds of times and done pickups there thousands of times (not exaggerating I drove a black car as a side gig for years doing pickups there). It's incredibly easy and efficient. And I've never once not found a parking spot in a terminal so not sure how much of an issue that is. Again distributed terminals is actually helpful I think in that case.

Yes the one real downside is if you fly American and go out of one terminal and into another and parked at the outgoing terminal. The terminal to terminal shuttles are the worst. That's not the case for any other airline (all domestic are at E and all international are at D). But even for American there are ways around that.

1. personally i rarely travelled with checked bags for business and that was 90% of my travel. Or when I lived in Dallas proper I took the Orange line so no car.
2. even if i was with family and had bags i would have them go to get the bags and I would take the skylink to the terminal where my car was and by the time i got back with the car they had our bags.
3. remote parking of course and the shuttles.

I've flown into.out of every major airport in the country. First I don't think you can or should compare to MCI or something so small. Yes those are easy even with the head house design. Of the 10 busiest in the US DFW is by far the best airport. And I've flown to all of them.

DFW is much better than ATL, DEN, Ohare, LAX, JFK, Charlotte, LV, Orlando, MIA. All of those are terrible. Seriously from parking to your gate at any of those has to be 40+ minutes or longer even without a big crowd. I've waited 20-30 minutes at some of those just to check bags and then the same at security. At DFW I rarely arrive more than 30 minutes before boarding time - usually 5-10 minutes to get through security (TSA pre check anyway) and add 5 if I have to check bags. And my gate is no more than 5 minutes away. I'm usually early even with that. I would never try that at any of those others. The head house design makes sense for airports where mass transit, taxi or bus is the primary mode of travel like La Guardia (new design is really great). For massive airports with parking and walking it's terrible.

And some are WAY outside the city. Another thing about DFW given it's size and the size of the airpoirt is its proximity (relatively). Sure it's a long way from say Allen or Cleburn. But being smack dab in the middle is way better than if they had built it anywhere else and it's basically 25 minutes from either downtown (except during rush hour). Denver had to close Stapleton and move almost out to Kansas to get enough room. It's so far from anything. Orlando is pretty out there too considering the size of the city. Ohare is not bad but they lack the ability to expand any more. Same with LAX. JFK is WAY out there too.

And the ability of DFW to expand like it has from 3 to 4 to 5 and now a 6th terminal is incredible. They are fortunate in that way that the land was dedicated so long ago and they have the ability to still expand more if needed. They even lengthened their runways and added the 7th and 8th runways during expansion. DFW is now the only airport in the world with four runways longer than 4,000 meters. And the way they added the Skylink was brilliant and also very possible with a consistent sort of terminal layout. A lot of other trains for airports are underground and adding terminals is difficult of course like ATL. They even had Skylink already routed for the 6th terminal they just have to add the gates for it.

The north and south entrances for cars also helps distribute traffic. The toll lines can get long occasionally but are half as long as they would be if there was one entrance like some airports.

DFW is confusing for visitors. I get that. But if you live here I think it is incredibly efficient, with a little planning if you have to check bags.

Saw this 2025 JD Power rating:

The best mega airports in North America

• MinneapolisSt. Paul International Airport (660 points)
• Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (649 points)
• Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (634 points)
• DallasForth Worth International Airport (620 points)
• Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas (619 points)
• John F. Kennedy International Airport (618 points)
• Orlando International Airport (618 points)
• Miami International Airport (615 points)
• San Francisco International Airport (613 points)
• Boston Logan International Airport (608 points)

It is #4 and none of those above it are top 10 in boardings. Of the next 10 in size PHX and DET are not bad. I've actually never flown to Minneapolis. The bottom 2 were Newark and Charlotte which I agree with.

Again to me given it's size it's really incredibly efficient, centrally located, and it's design helps with security, speed, traffic and parking imo. If I had to deal with DEN, ORD, MIA, CLT, MCO or JFK on a regular basis I would hate travel. Even LAS the last time I travelled there (July) it was almost 20 minutes from my gate by walking and train to bag claim and we waited another 20 for bags. And outbound we had a gate change and had to switch terminals which was another hike after security and a long hike and train to get there to begin with.

By the way in "large" airports Love Field ranked 3rd so really we are kind of blessed with both of ours. Only John Wayne (not bad) and Tampa (good) were ranked higher.

MCI post 9/11 and before their Reno was wild. It was so narrow that security practically dumped you right into the boarding area.

I no longer like DAL. WN is pushing too many flights through there causing massive space issues. You can't walk through that terminal without rubbing shoulders with someone. Like being at a concert.

And they've acknowledged this because now they are going to reno DAL again. They are going to remove Parking Garage A and pull the terminal back all the way to PG B to create more shoulder room.

YouBet said:

---

MCI post 9/11 and before their Reno was wild. It was so narrow that security practically dumped you right into the boarding area.

I no longer like DAL. WN is pushing too many flights through there causing massive space issues. You can't walk through that terminal without rubbing shoulders with someone. Like being at a concert.

And they've acknowledged this because now they are going to reno DAL again. They are going to remove Parking Garage A and pull the terminal back all the way to PG B to create more shoulder room.

---

Yeah I heard that about Love Field (DAL) I have not flown out of there in a while. Since I stopped flying for business. Only done pickups there as my daughter flies in there occasionally.

Thats a shame. Otherwise it is pretty efficient as a head house design but it's only 20 gates of course. I attribute that mostly to SW (WN) being an efficient airline more than anything. And they are losing fans too with the change to reserved seats.

I heard they were planning to expand the concourses basically as they cannot add gates. That will probably be a nightmare during construction but sounds like it is becoming necessary (or maybe it's already past that point).

I also heard SW was considering taking some gates at DFW now that restrictions have lapsed. That would be interesting but also might be necessary for any expansion in the area.

Most of the congestion problems at Love are because they eventually installed every restaurant/bar/shop/kiosk they possibly could in the center of what was once a perfectly adequately sized concourse. They were always short on bathrooms.

Our airports suck, but they're built for strictly utilitarian reasons. As with much architecture in the US it's not very aesthetically appealing. Europe has been much better than us about that.
Don't get me wrong the US is better than Europe in nearly every way, but there are a few things they do better than us.

GAC06 said:

---

Most of the congestion problems at Love are because they eventually installed every restaurant/bar/shop/kiosk they possibly could in the center of what was once a perfectly adequately sized concourse. They were always short on bathrooms.

---

That certainly didn't help, but I maintain that the seating areas and concourse itself is still too small for the throughput. The terminal endpoint boarding areas are an absolute nightmare.

Hell, all I want from an airport is good signage.

In the Tampa airport right now. Very impressed with the layout, cleanliness, etc. Big main terminal with trams to the satellite terminals. Don't hit security until you're at the specific gate areas in the satellites. Tram from main terminal to the Rental Car area was quick and efficient as well.

KRamp90 said:

---

You ever been to Heathrow?

---

I fly into Gatwick regularly. There is only one airport that is worse than Gatwick IMO...Newark

LGA Term B is quite nice now. You wouldn't even know where you were if you were used to old LGA

I fly monthly out of SRQ and TPA. Both are awesome.

Go see LGA now and term A at EWR, both are beautiful.


That said keep in mind most countries have one or two premier airports to build. We would have 50 plus.

Take the UK. Heathrow Terminal 5 is pretty nice. Birmingham is a small regional airport that is nice and easy to get in and out of, but nothing to write home about.

It is not the same comparison, but yes European, Middle Eastern, and Asian airports are often stunning.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

DFW was designed when parking and walking right to your gate made sense. With security, and the growth in number of terminals it doesn't make sense. You drive through a ton of airport which is inefficient and pointless with better designs. Then you hunt for a parking spot in whichever garage is at whatever terminal you happen to be assigned (unless it changes, oops) instead of a more efficient setup. Also, better hope it's not full or you're driving to another terminal to hunt, then navigating back to the place you wanted to be. Then when you return, if you checked a bag you better hope you're lucky enough to return to the same terminal or you're heading to the curb to wait for a bus to get back to your terminal garage then start navigating your way out of the airport. Kansas City had the same setup that aged like milk. They were small enough to be able to level it and build a modern terminal that makes sense now, not one that made sense in the 70's. There's a reason nobody is building airports in the style of MCI or DFW these days. DFW is just stuck with their crap design because it would be way too expensive to fix it.

---

Comparing DFW and MCI is a riot. You're talking about the 2nd busiest and the 40th in the US. And yes MCI was terrible and could not deal with post 9/11 due to it's size. DFW did not have the same problem. Other than being semi circular in nature they were not really close to the same thing. DFW had plenty of space to have checkin and security and had inner concourses separate already. They simply had to add security checkpoints between the outer concourse and inner concourse. MCI was so small they had to basically put up a partition running the length of the concourse that was severely narrow and cramped. I've flown there a few times so yeah it was terrible. And they had never expanded or changed really until the rebuild. The new terminal is 40 gates TOTAL. Comparable to one of the DFW terminals so of course it's more efficient. Try that design for 5 times as many gates.

But DFW has expanded since the 70s with Terminal D - a different design for that one terminal but the airport layout is still the same. Terminal F will add another terminal and different design. The genius of DFW is that it is expandable like that and updates or expansion don't affect every terminal and all passengers the way a single head house for all checkin security and baggage do. Not to mention the miles and miles and miles you have to walk through those designs. The way you can park and be at bag check in 2 minutes and then be off your plane and at your baggage carousel in 2 minutes or curbside if you did not check bags is unparalleled in any major airport.

I've flown out of DFW (and Love) hundreds of times and done pickups there thousands of times (not exaggerating I drove a black car as a side gig for years doing pickups there). It's incredibly easy and efficient. And I've never once not found a parking spot in a terminal so not sure how much of an issue that is. Again distributed terminals is actually helpful I think in that case.

Yes the one real downside is if you fly American and go out of one terminal and into another and parked at the outgoing terminal. The terminal to terminal shuttles are the worst. That's not the case for any other airline (all domestic are at E and all international are at D). But even for American there are ways around that.

1. personally i rarely travelled with checked bags for business and that was 90% of my travel. Or when I lived in Dallas proper I took the Orange line so no car.
2. even if i was with family and had bags i would have them go to get the bags and I would take the skylink to the terminal where my car was and by the time i got back with the car they had our bags.
3. remote parking of course and the shuttles.

I've flown into.out of every major airport in the country. First I don't think you can or should compare to MCI or something so small. Yes those are easy even with the head house design. Of the 10 busiest in the US DFW is by far the best airport. And I've flown to all of them.

DFW is much better than ATL, DEN, Ohare, LAX, JFK, Charlotte, LV, Orlando, MIA. All of those are terrible. Seriously from parking to your gate at any of those has to be 40+ minutes or longer even without a big crowd. I've waited 20-30 minutes at some of those just to check bags and then the same at security. At DFW I rarely arrive more than 30 minutes before boarding time - usually 5-10 minutes to get through security (TSA pre check anyway) and add 5 if I have to check bags. And my gate is no more than 5 minutes away. I'm usually early even with that. I would never try that at any of those others. The head house design makes sense for airports where mass transit, taxi or bus is the primary mode of travel like La Guardia (new design is really great). For massive airports with parking and walking it's terrible.

And some are WAY outside the city. Another thing about DFW given it's size and the size of the airpoirt is its proximity (relatively). Sure it's a long way from say Allen or Cleburn. But being smack dab in the middle is way better than if they had built it anywhere else and it's basically 25 minutes from either downtown (except during rush hour). Denver had to close Stapleton and move almost out to Kansas to get enough room. It's so far from anything. Orlando is pretty out there too considering the size of the city. Ohare is not bad but they lack the ability to expand any more. Same with LAX. JFK is WAY out there too.

And the ability of DFW to expand like it has from 3 to 4 to 5 and now a 6th terminal is incredible. They are fortunate in that way that the land was dedicated so long ago and they have the ability to still expand more if needed. They even lengthened their runways and added the 7th and 8th runways during expansion. DFW is now the only airport in the world with four runways longer than 4,000 meters. And the way they added the Skylink was brilliant and also very possible with a consistent sort of terminal layout. A lot of other trains for airports are underground and adding terminals is difficult of course like ATL. They even had Skylink already routed for the 6th terminal they just have to add the gates for it.

The north and south entrances for cars also helps distribute traffic. The toll lines can get long occasionally but are half as long as they would be if there was one entrance like some airports.

DFW is confusing for visitors. I get that. But if you live here I think it is incredibly efficient, with a little planning if you have to check bags.

Saw this 2025 JD Power rating:

The best mega airports in North America

• MinneapolisSt. Paul International Airport (660 points)
• Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (649 points)
• Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (634 points)
• DallasForth Worth International Airport (620 points)
• Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas (619 points)
• John F. Kennedy International Airport (618 points)
• Orlando International Airport (618 points)
• Miami International Airport (615 points)
• San Francisco International Airport (613 points)
• Boston Logan International Airport (608 points)

It is #4 and none of those above it are top 10 in boardings. Of the next 10 in size PHX and DET are not bad. I've actually never flown to Minneapolis. The bottom 2 were Newark and Charlotte which I agree with.

Again to me given it's size it's really incredibly efficient, centrally located, and it's design helps with security, speed, traffic and parking imo. If I had to deal with DEN, ORD, MIA, CLT, MCO or JFK on a regular basis I would hate travel. Even LAS the last time I travelled there (July) it was almost 20 minutes from my gate by walking and train to bag claim and we waited another 20 for bags. And outbound we had a gate change and had to switch terminals which was another hike after security and a long hike and train to get there to begin with.

By the way in "large" airports Love Field ranked 3rd so really we are kind of blessed with both of ours. Only John Wayne (not bad) and Tampa (good) were ranked higher.

---

Impressive - 5,000 words on why DFW is the greatest. They should reach out to you for an endorsement.

You did include the reasons I cited about why it sucks.

Flying American, you're most likely going to have to change terminals. And if you've got anything tighter than a 90 minute connection, good luck.

Flying in/out of DFW, god help you if you need oversized baggage check or oversized baggage claim.

The rental car center is good. But... You need to get there plenty early to allow enough time to get to the terminal.

And in your subsequent post, I can confirm that DAL sucks now too.

Sid Farkas said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

cab559 said:

---

I fly into O'Hare a couple of times a year and every time I go back to 1990 and Home Alone. Gosh that airport must be the biggest turd in America for a top 10 metro area.

---

Do you even LAX bro?

---

LAX is the worst airport in the US and it's not close.

just 15 minutes down the 405 is America's best: Long Beach Municipal

---

Burbank was 7 minutes from my house but unfortunately, LAX had the flights I needed.

During the scamdemic, I started flying out of Ontario for a while so I didn't have to play mask games.

I went to LAX in August and it's remarkable how their attempt to add a rental car train has made traffic at LAX the worst I've ever seen it. I'm sure it sounded great on paper.

One Louder said:

---

I'll take the Austin airport over IAH any day and twice on Sundays.

My favorite little airport is Bozeman/Yellowstone airport in Montana but I'm a fan of little airports in general. We just flew into Portland, Maine in September and our plane was delayed due to weather. By the time we finally disembarked, all the shops were closed and the employees were just waiting for us to get out so they could close up shop for the night. (It was only 8:30 pm! ) The best part about that is they were all laser-focused on getting our luggage off the plane quickly so they could go home.

---

Bozeman is a good airport but Great Falls Montana airport is even better than Bozeman IMHO

gggmann said:

---

SIN and ICN are by far the nicest airports I've visited. They put anything in the States to shame.

---

ICN is good but... they could stand to learn about running the air conditioning during the summer.

Singapore Changi is great but, I'm not a huge fan of the security at the gate lounge model.

When I arrived in Singapore back in February, I was blown away by how fast it was to get through immigration now that everything is digitized. Dubai departure was very similar but Dubai arrivals still sucked.

Wahoo82 said:

---

One Louder said:

---

I'll take the Austin airport over IAH any day and twice on Sundays.

My favorite little airport is Bozeman/Yellowstone airport in Montana but I'm a fan of little airports in general. We just flew into Portland, Maine in September and our plane was delayed due to weather. By the time we finally disembarked, all the shops were closed and the employees were just waiting for us to get out so they could close up shop for the night. (It was only 8:30 pm! ) The best part about that is they were all laser-focused on getting our luggage off the plane quickly so they could go home.

---

Bozeman is a good airport but Great Falls Montana airport is even better than Bozeman IMHO

---

I've flown into Bozeman and Butte last year and Kalispell three years ago.

• Butte was the best (but only Delta flies there so you have to connect via SLC)
• Kalispell was the worst - way too many tourists for too small of an airport.
• Bozeman was funny watching flights come in from various places. In 2024, there were still a high percentage of maskers on the arrival from Chicago. I felt so sorry for those people.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

cab559 said:

---

I fly into O'Hare a couple of times a year and every time I go back to 1990 and Home Alone. Gosh that airport must be the biggest turd in America for a top 10 metro area.

---

Do you even LAX bro?

---

LAX is the worst airport in the US and it's not close.

just 15 minutes down the 405 is America's best: Long Beach Municipal

---

Burbank was 7 minutes from my house but unfortunately, LAX had the flights I needed.

During the scamdemic, I started flying out of Ontario for a while so I didn't have to play mask games.

I went to LAX in August and it's remarkable how their attempt to add a rental car train has made traffic at LAX the worst I've ever seen it. I'm sure it sounded great on paper.

---

I flew out of LAX weekly during and just after the financial crisis and it was great. But the ride share and constant construction ****ed everything up. Its not going to get better until just before the '28 Olympics.

Towards the end of my career I purposely connected thru Phoenix from LGB, SNA or PSP just to avoid LAX. (I lived part time in PSP back then)...PSP is as good as LGB. Today its only LGB. I could ride my bike over there if I'm not traveling with luggage.

YouBet said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Most of the congestion problems at Love are because they eventually installed every restaurant/bar/shop/kiosk they possibly could in the center of what was once a perfectly adequately sized concourse. They were always short on bathrooms.

---

That certainly didn't help, but I maintain that the seating areas and concourse itself is still too small for the throughput. The terminal endpoint boarding areas are an absolute nightmare.

---

Sure but I don't think they anticipated this growth which is unfortunate.

The rebuilt new terminal was completed in 2013. The passengers in that year was 8.5 million.

The passengers last year was 18 million so more than double.

And the number of gates has not changed.

DFW may have its issues (Terminal B - I'm looking directly at you) but it also has over 200 gates and will be close to 250 gates soon. I think MCI has around 30 gates - not a great comparison. With the Skylink system you can get from any gate to another in less than 20 minutes (maybe with D1-4 and the E extension gates being the exceptions). Try to walk from Concourse E to Concourse A in CLT which I had to do a couple of weeks ago. At DFW you can also park and be at your gate in less than 15-20 minutes on most occasions because they have so many TSA checkpoints. Outside of maybe a Thanksgiving weekend, I've never really had an issue getting parking close to a TSA checkpoint at the terminal my flight was assigned. If you are going to evaluate DFW, you really have to compare it to ORD, JFK, ATL, LAX, CLT, DEN or PHX. Of those, I'd take DFW over the rest.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

DFW was designed when parking and walking right to your gate made sense. With security, and the growth in number of terminals it doesn't make sense. You drive through a ton of airport which is inefficient and pointless with better designs. Then you hunt for a parking spot in whichever garage is at whatever terminal you happen to be assigned (unless it changes, oops) instead of a more efficient setup. Also, better hope it's not full or you're driving to another terminal to hunt, then navigating back to the place you wanted to be. Then when you return, if you checked a bag you better hope you're lucky enough to return to the same terminal or you're heading to the curb to wait for a bus to get back to your terminal garage then start navigating your way out of the airport. Kansas City had the same setup that aged like milk. They were small enough to be able to level it and build a modern terminal that makes sense now, not one that made sense in the 70's. There's a reason nobody is building airports in the style of MCI or DFW these days. DFW is just stuck with their crap design because it would be way too expensive to fix it.

---

Comparing DFW and MCI is a riot. You're talking about the 2nd busiest and the 40th in the US. And yes MCI was terrible and could not deal with post 9/11 due to it's size. DFW did not have the same problem. Other than being semi circular in nature they were not really close to the same thing. DFW had plenty of space to have checkin and security and had inner concourses separate already. They simply had to add security checkpoints between the outer concourse and inner concourse. MCI was so small they had to basically put up a partition running the length of the concourse that was severely narrow and cramped. I've flown there a few times so yeah it was terrible. And they had never expanded or changed really until the rebuild. The new terminal is 40 gates TOTAL. Comparable to one of the DFW terminals so of course it's more efficient. Try that design for 5 times as many gates.

But DFW has expanded since the 70s with Terminal D - a different design for that one terminal but the airport layout is still the same. Terminal F will add another terminal and different design. The genius of DFW is that it is expandable like that and updates or expansion don't affect every terminal and all passengers the way a single head house for all checkin security and baggage do. Not to mention the miles and miles and miles you have to walk through those designs. The way you can park and be at bag check in 2 minutes and then be off your plane and at your baggage carousel in 2 minutes or curbside if you did not check bags is unparalleled in any major airport.

I've flown out of DFW (and Love) hundreds of times and done pickups there thousands of times (not exaggerating I drove a black car as a side gig for years doing pickups there). It's incredibly easy and efficient. And I've never once not found a parking spot in a terminal so not sure how much of an issue that is. Again distributed terminals is actually helpful I think in that case.

Yes the one real downside is if you fly American and go out of one terminal and into another and parked at the outgoing terminal. The terminal to terminal shuttles are the worst. That's not the case for any other airline (all domestic are at E and all international are at D). But even for American there are ways around that.

1. personally i rarely travelled with checked bags for business and that was 90% of my travel. Or when I lived in Dallas proper I took the Orange line so no car.
2. even if i was with family and had bags i would have them go to get the bags and I would take the skylink to the terminal where my car was and by the time i got back with the car they had our bags.
3. remote parking of course and the shuttles.

I've flown into.out of every major airport in the country. First I don't think you can or should compare to MCI or something so small. Yes those are easy even with the head house design. Of the 10 busiest in the US DFW is by far the best airport. And I've flown to all of them.

DFW is much better than ATL, DEN, Ohare, LAX, JFK, Charlotte, LV, Orlando, MIA. All of those are terrible. Seriously from parking to your gate at any of those has to be 40+ minutes or longer even without a big crowd. I've waited 20-30 minutes at some of those just to check bags and then the same at security. At DFW I rarely arrive more than 30 minutes before boarding time - usually 5-10 minutes to get through security (TSA pre check anyway) and add 5 if I have to check bags. And my gate is no more than 5 minutes away. I'm usually early even with that. I would never try that at any of those others. The head house design makes sense for airports where mass transit, taxi or bus is the primary mode of travel like La Guardia (new design is really great). For massive airports with parking and walking it's terrible.

And some are WAY outside the city. Another thing about DFW given it's size and the size of the airpoirt is its proximity (relatively). Sure it's a long way from say Allen or Cleburn. But being smack dab in the middle is way better than if they had built it anywhere else and it's basically 25 minutes from either downtown (except during rush hour). Denver had to close Stapleton and move almost out to Kansas to get enough room. It's so far from anything. Orlando is pretty out there too considering the size of the city. Ohare is not bad but they lack the ability to expand any more. Same with LAX. JFK is WAY out there too.

And the ability of DFW to expand like it has from 3 to 4 to 5 and now a 6th terminal is incredible. They are fortunate in that way that the land was dedicated so long ago and they have the ability to still expand more if needed. They even lengthened their runways and added the 7th and 8th runways during expansion. DFW is now the only airport in the world with four runways longer than 4,000 meters. And the way they added the Skylink was brilliant and also very possible with a consistent sort of terminal layout. A lot of other trains for airports are underground and adding terminals is difficult of course like ATL. They even had Skylink already routed for the 6th terminal they just have to add the gates for it.

The north and south entrances for cars also helps distribute traffic. The toll lines can get long occasionally but are half as long as they would be if there was one entrance like some airports.

DFW is confusing for visitors. I get that. But if you live here I think it is incredibly efficient, with a little planning if you have to check bags.

Saw this 2025 JD Power rating:

The best mega airports in North America

• MinneapolisSt. Paul International Airport (660 points)
• Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (649 points)
• Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (634 points)
• DallasForth Worth International Airport (620 points)
• Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas (619 points)
• John F. Kennedy International Airport (618 points)
• Orlando International Airport (618 points)
• Miami International Airport (615 points)
• San Francisco International Airport (613 points)
• Boston Logan International Airport (608 points)

It is #4 and none of those above it are top 10 in boardings. Of the next 10 in size PHX and DET are not bad. I've actually never flown to Minneapolis. The bottom 2 were Newark and Charlotte which I agree with.

Again to me given it's size it's really incredibly efficient, centrally located, and it's design helps with security, speed, traffic and parking imo. If I had to deal with DEN, ORD, MIA, CLT, MCO or JFK on a regular basis I would hate travel. Even LAS the last time I travelled there (July) it was almost 20 minutes from my gate by walking and train to bag claim and we waited another 20 for bags. And outbound we had a gate change and had to switch terminals which was another hike after security and a long hike and train to get there to begin with.

By the way in "large" airports Love Field ranked 3rd so really we are kind of blessed with both of ours. Only John Wayne (not bad) and Tampa (good) were ranked higher.

---

Geez dude. Just go ahead and marry DFW since you love it so much.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

DFW was designed when parking and walking right to your gate made sense. With security, and the growth in number of terminals it doesn't make sense. You drive through a ton of airport which is inefficient and pointless with better designs. Then you hunt for a parking spot in whichever garage is at whatever terminal you happen to be assigned (unless it changes, oops) instead of a more efficient setup. Also, better hope it's not full or you're driving to another terminal to hunt, then navigating back to the place you wanted to be. Then when you return, if you checked a bag you better hope you're lucky enough to return to the same terminal or you're heading to the curb to wait for a bus to get back to your terminal garage then start navigating your way out of the airport. Kansas City had the same setup that aged like milk. They were small enough to be able to level it and build a modern terminal that makes sense now, not one that made sense in the 70's. There's a reason nobody is building airports in the style of MCI or DFW these days. DFW is just stuck with their crap design because it would be way too expensive to fix it.

---

Comparing DFW and MCI is a riot. You're talking about the 2nd busiest and the 40th in the US. And yes MCI was terrible and could not deal with post 9/11 due to it's size. DFW did not have the same problem. Other than being semi circular in nature they were not really close to the same thing. DFW had plenty of space to have checkin and security and had inner concourses separate already. They simply had to add security checkpoints between the outer concourse and inner concourse. MCI was so small they had to basically put up a partition running the length of the concourse that was severely narrow and cramped. I've flown there a few times so yeah it was terrible. And they had never expanded or changed really until the rebuild. The new terminal is 40 gates TOTAL. Comparable to one of the DFW terminals so of course it's more efficient. Try that design for 5 times as many gates.

But DFW has expanded since the 70s with Terminal D - a different design for that one terminal but the airport layout is still the same. Terminal F will add another terminal and different design. The genius of DFW is that it is expandable like that and updates or expansion don't affect every terminal and all passengers the way a single head house for all checkin security and baggage do. Not to mention the miles and miles and miles you have to walk through those designs. The way you can park and be at bag check in 2 minutes and then be off your plane and at your baggage carousel in 2 minutes or curbside if you did not check bags is unparalleled in any major airport.

I've flown out of DFW (and Love) hundreds of times and done pickups there thousands of times (not exaggerating I drove a black car as a side gig for years doing pickups there). It's incredibly easy and efficient. And I've never once not found a parking spot in a terminal so not sure how much of an issue that is. Again distributed terminals is actually helpful I think in that case.

Yes the one real downside is if you fly American and go out of one terminal and into another and parked at the outgoing terminal. The terminal to terminal shuttles are the worst. That's not the case for any other airline (all domestic are at E and all international are at D). But even for American there are ways around that.

1. personally i rarely travelled with checked bags for business and that was 90% of my travel. Or when I lived in Dallas proper I took the Orange line so no car.
2. even if i was with family and had bags i would have them go to get the bags and I would take the skylink to the terminal where my car was and by the time i got back with the car they had our bags.
3. remote parking of course and the shuttles.

I've flown into.out of every major airport in the country. First I don't think you can or should compare to MCI or something so small. Yes those are easy even with the head house design. Of the 10 busiest in the US DFW is by far the best airport. And I've flown to all of them.

DFW is much better than ATL, DEN, Ohare, LAX, JFK, Charlotte, LV, Orlando, MIA. All of those are terrible. Seriously from parking to your gate at any of those has to be 40+ minutes or longer even without a big crowd. I've waited 20-30 minutes at some of those just to check bags and then the same at security. At DFW I rarely arrive more than 30 minutes before boarding time - usually 5-10 minutes to get through security (TSA pre check anyway) and add 5 if I have to check bags. And my gate is no more than 5 minutes away. I'm usually early even with that. I would never try that at any of those others. The head house design makes sense for airports where mass transit, taxi or bus is the primary mode of travel like La Guardia (new design is really great). For massive airports with parking and walking it's terrible.

And some are WAY outside the city. Another thing about DFW given it's size and the size of the airpoirt is its proximity (relatively). Sure it's a long way from say Allen or Cleburn. But being smack dab in the middle is way better than if they had built it anywhere else and it's basically 25 minutes from either downtown (except during rush hour). Denver had to close Stapleton and move almost out to Kansas to get enough room. It's so far from anything. Orlando is pretty out there too considering the size of the city. Ohare is not bad but they lack the ability to expand any more. Same with LAX. JFK is WAY out there too.

And the ability of DFW to expand like it has from 3 to 4 to 5 and now a 6th terminal is incredible. They are fortunate in that way that the land was dedicated so long ago and they have the ability to still expand more if needed. They even lengthened their runways and added the 7th and 8th runways during expansion. DFW is now the only airport in the world with four runways longer than 4,000 meters. And the way they added the Skylink was brilliant and also very possible with a consistent sort of terminal layout. A lot of other trains for airports are underground and adding terminals is difficult of course like ATL. They even had Skylink already routed for the 6th terminal they just have to add the gates for it.

The north and south entrances for cars also helps distribute traffic. The toll lines can get long occasionally but are half as long as they would be if there was one entrance like some airports.

DFW is confusing for visitors. I get that. But if you live here I think it is incredibly efficient, with a little planning if you have to check bags.

Saw this 2025 JD Power rating:

The best mega airports in North America

• MinneapolisSt. Paul International Airport (660 points)
• Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (649 points)
• Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (634 points)
• DallasForth Worth International Airport (620 points)
• Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas (619 points)
• John F. Kennedy International Airport (618 points)
• Orlando International Airport (618 points)
• Miami International Airport (615 points)
• San Francisco International Airport (613 points)
• Boston Logan International Airport (608 points)

It is #4 and none of those above it are top 10 in boardings. Of the next 10 in size PHX and DET are not bad. I've actually never flown to Minneapolis. The bottom 2 were Newark and Charlotte which I agree with.

Again to me given it's size it's really incredibly efficient, centrally located, and it's design helps with security, speed, traffic and parking imo. If I had to deal with DEN, ORD, MIA, CLT, MCO or JFK on a regular basis I would hate travel. Even LAS the last time I travelled there (July) it was almost 20 minutes from my gate by walking and train to bag claim and we waited another 20 for bags. And outbound we had a gate change and had to switch terminals which was another hike after security and a long hike and train to get there to begin with.

By the way in "large" airports Love Field ranked 3rd so really we are kind of blessed with both of ours. Only John Wayne (not bad) and Tampa (good) were ranked higher.

---

Impressive - 5,000 words on why DFW is the greatest. They should reach out to you for an endorsement.

You did include the reasons I cited about why it sucks.

Flying American, you're most likely going to have to change terminals. And if you've got anything tighter than a 90 minute connection, good luck.

Flying in/out of DFW, god help you if you need oversized baggage check or oversized baggage claim.

The rental car center is good. But... You need to get there plenty early to allow enough time to get to the terminal.

And in your subsequent post, I can confirm that DAL sucks now too.

---

only ~1200

Yes changing terminals sucks - true at ANY airport. And I don't think one central parking is much better even if that is the case when it takes you 40 minutes to get from gate to bag claim to car - about the same.

Connecting? I mean if you connect through DFW it's not bad Skylink is easy and takes no more than 20 minutes to the furthest terminal from starting point. Why would you need 90 minutes? I mean I wouldn't book a fight anywhere with less than 60 minutes between connecting flights just because of delays always making it dicey. But DFW is easier to get terminal to terminal than most large airports. Comparable to ATL for example. Better than MIA or JFK or Ohare or Newark. Living here making connections is not an issue for us/me.

Oversized baggage I have no recent experience with but I doubt it's much worse than anywhere. Just something I would never do any more. I used to fly with skis and yeah it was difficult but that was true at all airports I went to (DEN and SLC for example).'

Car rental is ok I guess not something I really have to deal with locally - but the remoteness of the car rental place is a big negative - interestingly that is the one aspect of DFW that is centralized which is part of what makes it so hard to use because it's not near any of the terminals.

The ONE real part that sucks (into and out of different terminals) can be worked around pretty easily most of the time and only applies to flying American anyway.

DFW and MCI were the same basic design of multiple horseshoe terminals designed for when you could park and be at the gate within five minutes. Getting between numerous smaller terminals with gates only on one side is worse than fewer large terminals with gates on all sides. It's also much less efficient, needing a garage, ticketing, baggage, and security for every terminal plus a maze of roads to navigate between them plus the inefficiencies for the aircraft getting around the airport.

MCI fixed theirs and is rebuilt like most modern airports. DFW is stuck because it would be an enormous project.

MCI was much closer to LBB than DFW back in the day.

I wouldn't say walking a half mile under the tarmac is a great way to design an airport. Let's take that MCI design and build out another 200 gates to see how well it works. SLC has double the gates of MCI and it already had to modify it's original design to cut down on the walking. And that is about 1/4th the gates as DFW. The skylink in DFW is a much better design than walking long distances under the tarmac. When you have 200+ gates, you have to deal with massive traffic getting into and out of one long drive for the terminals or modularize it like DFW. I would much rather pick someone up at DFW than LAX. Once you get to that size, you are forced to figure out how to deal with rental cars which are usually placed offsite at that point unless you are CDG and then you place in the center and make it confusing to get in and out of.

Quote:

---

MCI was much closer to LBB than DFW back in the day.

---

No, it wasn't.

MCI 1970's



DFW 1970's



LBB 1970's

GAC06 said:

---

DFW and MCI were the same basic design of multiple horseshoe terminals designed for when you could park and be at the gate within five minutes. Getting between numerous smaller terminals with gates only on one side is worse than fewer large terminals with gates on all sides. It's also much less efficient, needing a garage, ticketing, baggage, and security for every terminal plus a maze of roads to navigate between them plus the inefficiencies for the aircraft getting around the airport.

MCI fixed theirs and is rebuilt like most modern airports. DFW is stuck because it would be an enormous project.

---

Dumbest comparison on here. Again other than being semicircular DFW and MCI were not close to the same. DFW's terminals were huge by comparison. And easily accommodated the change to post 911 security.

And it's easy to rebuild a 40 gate terminal. Like the other person said try extrapolating what they did at MCI to over 220 gates and 87 million passengers like DFW is. it doesn't work.

We aren't stuck with an out of date design. It's incredibly well designed to expand and add as they are adding terminal F easily. With skylink already there as well.

And it's not less efficient. It's more efficient. You don't get security, all bogged down at one place with a crush of people. It's distributed.

Literally, the only issue is if you fly out of one terminal and into another terminal, depending on where you parked.

Last response to you since it's becoming clear you're being intentionally obtuse. The design of MCI when it opened as TWA's hub and when DFW opened are largely the same. MCI has fewer gates now because it's no major airlines's hub. MCI aged worse because the terminals lacked space for security, but the inherent inefficiencies are the same. Having security, baggage, a garage, ticketing for every single terminal is not more efficient. It's significantly less efficient and there's a reason nobody is building airports that way anymore. I don't know how I can explain it better than that.

I don't really pay much attention to airports, I tend to like smaller ones better than larger ones, and domestic over foreign only because I don't speak anything but English.

I don't care about shops and restaurants within them since I don't shop or eat at an airport.

I've got a challenge for anyone who thinks that DFW airport is inefficient. I'll do this from my house using DFW airport. And you try the same from 25-30 minutes away from any major airport in the United States. That's my drive time assuming no real heavy traffic.

I will leave my house exactly ONE hour before my designated boarding time of a flight and I will be to my gate with time to spare. I've done this many times and I don't mean 10 times, I mean 100 or more as I flew for business a lot. I used to do the same for Lovefield, and to be honest it was usually a little dicier there because of the one central head house and the fact that parking was more remote.

So name your airport in the top 20 of passengers flown and your distance in drive time away from it. Add 35 minutes to that and try it. Good luck.

I know I'm gonna make it about 99% of the time. I've literally missed one flight flying out of DFW since 1982. And in that case, there had been huge storms the night before which I didn't think about for my early morning flight, and the security and bag check lines were huge from all the stranded passengers the night before.

Biggest issues with airports is there isn't enough space at the gates for the amount of people getting on the planes.

TVC (Traverse City, Michigan) is a great little airport last time I was there.

Scruffy said:

---

Biggest issues with airports is there isn't enough space at the gates for the amount of people getting on the planes.

---

This. Ha. 20 seats and about 10 feet before you hit the walk way, for 200 people getting on the plane.