As someone who did the old JFK-LAX-SYD multiple times not once on either the outbound or the return leg did I ever have sufficient time to visit a lounge in LAX unless stopping over (which I rarely do because well i hate Los Angeles).
Because of the crazy long immigration queues in LAX, then the need to drop bag and re-clear security, you are lucky to have time to pee before boarding the second leg.
Being a late afternoon departure from JKF there were often thunderstorms delaying departure then upon landing at LAX only time to use the loo and a rush to new gate where the LAX-SYD leg was usually already boarding. The one time it left JFK on time, there was still only about 20 mins from arriving to boarding so not enough for a meal and shower.
I suppose the issue there is about the timing of such connecting flights, something which Qantas should have some control over.
Disagree QF flies into DFW from SYD and MEL which is a much larger AA hub than LAX, and most QFFs will fly AA in US domestically if connecting.
I will concede that DFW is the larger hub for AA, no doubt about that. Indeed, the only way I could get to PIT from SYD in one stop on OneWorld was flying QF to DFW then connecting onto AA's pit service. What I will point out here was that I had a 2.5 hour scheduled layover (which turned out being a 3.5 hour layover as the flight arrived an hour early). After clearing immigration (5 mins with GE), collecting my bag and clearing TSA pre-check it took me about an hour to reappear airside at DFW. At which time I enjoyed the AA Flagship lounge there.
But to your point about LAX not being a major hub for OW, whilst that was the case pre-COVID when SYD > LAX > JFK was operating, things have changed quite a bit. In particular, I draw your attention to Alaska Airlines joining OneWorld which does have a substantial presence out of LAX.
DFW is the second busiest airport in the USA (LAX is only #5). IME clearing immigration and security at DFW has always been quicker for Aussies than at LAX who are ineligible for pre-clearance. Connections to mid west, east coast, mexico and central america all better out of DFW than LAX.
For me, a Canadian who has Global Entry it makes no difference where I land. The process is always the same now: walk up to a Global Entry machine, it scans my face, then I walk up to the immigration counter and there is someone calling my name and they just let me through. There is no need to reach for a passport or answer any questions, it's that simple. What I will point out is that yes, the queues for people not fortunate to have this benefit are shorter at DFW than LAX and certainly JFK.
In terms of the busiest airport those figures can be misleading. I mean Atlanta is the busiest airport in the US but I've only flown through it once, and this is someone who flies frequently to the US. The airport is a nightmare to navigate, making even the maze known as Frankfurt seem simple. The other issue is that Atlanta is a Delta/SkyTeam hub which automatically excludes a large number of passengers (including myself) from consideration. I mean when I flew out of Canada for the US, Delta was never an option since it always involved a connection (remember Canada is Star Alliance country thanks to Aer Canada controlling the skies over there) and no lounge access. Yes other airlines do fly into Atlanta but it is predominantly a hub for Delta. A similar argument could be made for Dallas. Yes, Dallas may be the second largest hub, but it's simply because they are a hub for American Airlines. Well guess what? Times have changed! Alaska Airlines has joined OneWorld and so we must consider Alaska's route network in addition to American. LA is a major hub for Alaska. So the point I am trying to make is sure Atlanta or Dallas are larger in terms of flights, but in terms of diversity LAX will remain number one. No other airport in America has as many connection options to as many destinations as LAX since everyone flies in there. You got tons of Star Alliance, OneWorld and SkyTeam flights.
Realize two that LAX is in a unique situation here. LA is the second largest city in the United States. But despite this, they only have one airport: LAX. Now some will argue what about John Wayne (SNA) or Ontario (ONT) airports. Well those are tiny airports that serve short haul destinations. Contrast that with a city like New York (the largest city in the US might I add) where they have two major international airports: JFK and Newark, in addition to the smaller regional airport of LGA. Traffic is split off between these airports. United operates out of Newark whereas Delta and American operate out of JFK. Star Alliance is also split in that regard between EWR and JFK with some carriers operating flights out of both (i.e. SQ comes to mind).
Once sunrise happens it will be fabulous to/from fly to JFK directly. But if they were to divert from the AKL stop-over in the mean time Id prefer DFW to LAX.
The key question will be what that experience is like. Yes I understand that Qantas has spent considerable resources researching the impact of ultra long flights. But you could do all the research you want on an issue, but the fact of the matter is if you are stuck middle seat on a 19+ hour flight to JFK in Y you are not gonna be happy. Again, there is a reason why SQ wisely chose to only offer PY and J cabins:
Now sure, maybe for most of us who have the luxury of affording to pay for business be it by points or money and so it won't be a bad experience, but please realize not everyone will have that luxury. And the convenience of taking one flight instead of two will be trumped by the discomfort of being trapped in a narrow tube for 19 hours. Not good if you are claustrophobic if you ask me!
-RooFlyer88
