It's a little silly to compare LAX or JFK to something like the Tallahassee Regional Airport and then make a sweeping conclusion that America needs smaller, mor

It's a little silly to compare LAX or JFK to something like the Tallahassee Regional Airport and then make a sweeping conclusion that America needs smaller, more regionalized airports. LAX serves a very different purpose from Tallahassee Regional. It's the #3 busiest airport in the US, and also the #3 busiest in the US by international traffic. LAX sucks, and I say that as a Los Angeles native and lifelong LAX sufferer. It sucks because it's so busy. It sucks because road traffic in and out of the airport can take longer than some plane flights. It sucks because it's filthy, and other than the newer additions to Tom Bradley, most of it hasn't been upgraded since the mid-70s. It sucks because the security line is one of the laziest and slowest moving in the country. It sucks for any number of reasons, but none of those reasons is remotely comparable to Tallahassee. Small, regional airports are great experiences. I lived in Arkansas for a few years, and XNA (Northwest Arkansas Regional) is one of the cleanest, quickest, quietest airports in the country. That's also because the entire population of Northwest Arkansas could fit comfortably into a few blocks of LA. If and when XNA starts to accommodate even 1/10th of the traffic of LAX, I'll compare the two. If we want to make apples-to-apples comparisons, I've been consistently impressed with the Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) airport. For a regional hub and a very busy airport, it manages really good on-time percentages, it's fairly clean, and the transportation system makes moving between terminals really easy. It's in light of airports like DFW, not the small regionals, that I can say that LAX sucks. (Even Chicago O'Hare, the #2 busiest in the country, seems remarkably more efficient, friendly, and clean than LAX).