What’s the matter with airports? (2011)(askthepilot.com)
askthepilot.com
What’s the matter with airports? (2011)
https://askthepilot.com/essaysandstories/whats-the-matter-with-airports/
121 comments
Incheon.
I have flown many hundreds of times over my lifetime to most continents and this remains the best thought-out airport. I only need give 1 example. You can move from your seat on the plane, with your 4-wheeled cabin case, all the way through the entire airport to your taxi using no more than your pinky finger to push the case. There are no bumps, no stairs, no changes in elevation that require you lift the thing. A 90yr old could do it. This is no accident.
When I was stuck at incheon for a few hours, I had a hard time finding a place that would sell cold bottled water. It was bizarre how the convenience shop type of store was just missing in whatever branch of incheon I was waiting at. All the water was slightly warm at the least from the few restaurant type places I was able to get water, even if it came out of a fridge.
Also when I arrived at korea where it was a bit confusing for an english speaker to find your way around from the airport. Korea is not integrated with google or apple maps as far as transit directions go, by law I think, so I had to download a korean maps app in a hurry to try to get around, and that korean app was not localized well (or maybe not at all, it was 2 years ago).
We also had to use a bus vs. a train to get out as we arrived late and buying the ticket was not a straightfoward process. We almost missed the bus if it wasn't for a nice bus driver guy who also really didn't know english that well.
While in japan and a whole bunch of other countries I've landed in, developed or not, I've had none of these issues.
Once at our hotel it was a fairly standard experience, and Seoul was quite a nice place to visit! But the airport experience had a lot of weird hitches.
Also when I arrived at korea where it was a bit confusing for an english speaker to find your way around from the airport. Korea is not integrated with google or apple maps as far as transit directions go, by law I think, so I had to download a korean maps app in a hurry to try to get around, and that korean app was not localized well (or maybe not at all, it was 2 years ago).
We also had to use a bus vs. a train to get out as we arrived late and buying the ticket was not a straightfoward process. We almost missed the bus if it wasn't for a nice bus driver guy who also really didn't know english that well.
While in japan and a whole bunch of other countries I've landed in, developed or not, I've had none of these issues.
Once at our hotel it was a fairly standard experience, and Seoul was quite a nice place to visit! But the airport experience had a lot of weird hitches.
Haha, the water thing is fun. Cold water is torture in Chinese and Korean culture. As in the cultural understanding of drinking cold water is that it hurts, is displeasant, and will cause ingestion. Thus of course no store is going to allow water to get too cold for consumption.
Similar to how the German strongly prefer to keep stomachs warm.
Similar to how the German strongly prefer to keep stomachs warm.
> a nice bus driver guy who also really didn't know english that well.
As opposed to the nice bus drivers in English-speaking countries who know Korean really well?
As opposed to the nice bus drivers in English-speaking countries who know Korean really well?
> This is no accident.
That's the thing: no big, complex system ever works well by accident. It all comes down to the goals, the vision, and having someone at the top who can see they get met without compromising. Often this does happen, but the goals are "save money" or "increase throughput", which are not human-friendly metrics. If the goal isn't "make the airport dead easy for grandma", then it will probably be difficult for her. In other words, we have to care about the right things, or things in general will just end up crappy.
That's the thing: no big, complex system ever works well by accident. It all comes down to the goals, the vision, and having someone at the top who can see they get met without compromising. Often this does happen, but the goals are "save money" or "increase throughput", which are not human-friendly metrics. If the goal isn't "make the airport dead easy for grandma", then it will probably be difficult for her. In other words, we have to care about the right things, or things in general will just end up crappy.
I flew London->Seoul, spent a week, then Seoul->Tokyo and return and carried on back to London.
The latter ended up being arriving at 2.30 am and then waiting until 10.00 am for the for the next leg.
I was able to have a reasonable snooze, and a free shower quite easily - which was much appreciated.
Thought-out and creative. They took advantage of the nice glass-view they have in terminals. There is space with outlets where you can get some work (ie: browsing HN) done. I took a photo (this was pre-covid). The other big one (for me, haha) is that they had the smoking lounge very close. So I leave my laptop/bag for some vaping while being able to watch them from inside the smoking area.
https://i.imgur.com/pVOEGoO.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/pVOEGoO.jpg
The article rates Incheon airport at the top of the list.
The dangerous question is: Is it turning a profit (or at least breaking even?); or being supported by the government. Because the Asia economy flights are "dirt cheap".
Actually yes, in 2019 it made a profit of 890.5 billion KRW, or about 770M USD, which was a 15-year profitable streak since 2004 [1]. (It lost money in 2020, but that's hardly surprising ...)
To be fair, it's one of the few airports in Korea that's actually making money. After Incheon, Korea built many vanity project airports and most of them are bleeding money.
[1] https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20200109105300004 (article in Korean)
To be fair, it's one of the few airports in Korea that's actually making money. After Incheon, Korea built many vanity project airports and most of them are bleeding money.
[1] https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20200109105300004 (article in Korean)
I love the napping lounge (with showers and a reasonably priced massage service) on the top floor—tell me it’s still there!
These kinds of anecdotes are why I come to this site.
> What do we do at airports? We kill time. And there are few better and more productive ways of killing time than logging on to the Web...It should be everywhere, and it should be free.
As long as the airports continue to make a killing off of internet fees, I can't imagine this happening any time soon.
As long as the airports continue to make a killing off of internet fees, I can't imagine this happening any time soon.
Or perhaps the opposite could happen: as more and more people start carrying devices that have access to the internet via cellular connection, airports could start providing Wi-Fi for free, as they could use that for tracking, marketing, and other "fun" uses
I think it's roaming fees that really get airports able to charge for wifi. 4G on my phone is already way more reliable than any airport wifi, and since within the EU it doesn't cost anything to use my data allowance while roaming, I never use airport wifi in the EU, it's only in the US I use it because there I have to pay €10/gb in advance for roaming data allowances.
ORD and DCA have free wifi and they collect emails presumably for that marketing purpose.
Next time they can just bring a book... Somehow humanity has managed to kill time for millennia before ARPANET
A book doesn't let me check if my flight is on time, check the weather at the destination, message anyone expecting me at the other end, ...
There's a multitude of reasons to have a decent internet connection at an airport.
There's a multitude of reasons to have a decent internet connection at an airport.
Yes, but killing time is not one of them.
I'm not one of those people obsessed with shaming american infrastructure by using trains; I don't really care about trains. Instead I'll be the first to shame American airports. Many Asian airports truly put us to shame. Notably Changi, Incheon, Hong Kong, etc. Those airports are so delightful that pre-covid when I was flying I would deliberately choose tickets with a long layover just to relax in them.
Which major US airports do not have train or public transit to the city center? Chicago does for both Midway and O'Hare, I'm pretty sure NYC does, not sure about others (not much of a traveler).
LAX does not have a train to city center (they aim to get one done by the Olympics). It does have busses to Culver City / Santa Monica, although the busses stop fairly far from the terminal and you need to transfer to a second bus to get to the terminal. You can somewhat mitigate this with the "flyaway" bus.
So, for instance, if I was in Koreatown I'd get the subway east to downtown and get the flyaway bus to LAX. If I were in Gramercy Park, I'd have to take 3 busses. When I lived in Culver City, I could get the Culver City 6 to almost to LAX and then had to walk or use a shuttle to get to the terminal. If I was in Brentwood, I'd have to get a bus to somewhere near Culver City, take the 6, then walk or use a shuttle to get to the terminal.
I'm not really sure what you'd call "city center" for a city like LA, but no matter where you are, there is absolutely positively not convenient transit to get you from there to LAX.
So, for instance, if I was in Koreatown I'd get the subway east to downtown and get the flyaway bus to LAX. If I were in Gramercy Park, I'd have to take 3 busses. When I lived in Culver City, I could get the Culver City 6 to almost to LAX and then had to walk or use a shuttle to get to the terminal. If I was in Brentwood, I'd have to get a bus to somewhere near Culver City, take the 6, then walk or use a shuttle to get to the terminal.
I'm not really sure what you'd call "city center" for a city like LA, but no matter where you are, there is absolutely positively not convenient transit to get you from there to LAX.
BOS has the "Silver Line", which is this weird part of the T that isn't subway, but actually a bus that is powered by electricity for … part of the ride? I usually take that to get to the red line. The blue line has a stop called "Airport" … that isn't at the airport, you have to take a bus from there.
SFO's connection to Caltrain is this ridiculous jumping of hoops through BART. (There's a more direct connection, but still through BART, but is never running when I've needed it…) (BART also isn't at the airport, but rather, nearby, there's a tram to get there. So tram → BART → Caltrain…)
The point of an airport is that it's a major transportation hub, connecting the city to distant points. But it's a transit hub, and it should have that positioning on the local transit lines: a direct transition from that long-haul aircraft to city-level backbone transit. Instead, in most places, the airport's position on the transit system is best described as an afterthought.
I should be taking the taxi/Lyft/Uber to get to the nearest public transit station. Not "it's not worth it, we'll just taxi/Lyft/Uber all the way there."
SFO's connection to Caltrain is this ridiculous jumping of hoops through BART. (There's a more direct connection, but still through BART, but is never running when I've needed it…) (BART also isn't at the airport, but rather, nearby, there's a tram to get there. So tram → BART → Caltrain…)
The point of an airport is that it's a major transportation hub, connecting the city to distant points. But it's a transit hub, and it should have that positioning on the local transit lines: a direct transition from that long-haul aircraft to city-level backbone transit. Instead, in most places, the airport's position on the transit system is best described as an afterthought.
I should be taking the taxi/Lyft/Uber to get to the nearest public transit station. Not "it's not worth it, we'll just taxi/Lyft/Uber all the way there."
For going to downtown San Francisco, I find the airtrain to BART works pretty well. But maybe I remember what it was like before the BART connection so BART seems like a pretty good option.
I don't know for sure but I suspect the history with the Boston Airport Blue Line stop is that before a lot of the skybridge and other work done around the time of the Big Dig is that I'm not sure you even theoretically could walk between arbitrary terminals. So there wasn't a good central location to put it. Therefore, it made siting the T stop somewhere convenient for the planners given that Airport isn't a terminating stop as it is at a lot of airports a good option.
The Silver Line has worked fine the few times I've taken it even if it is a bit odd. But I live way west of the city so I'm not usually going from downtown to the airport.
I don't know for sure but I suspect the history with the Boston Airport Blue Line stop is that before a lot of the skybridge and other work done around the time of the Big Dig is that I'm not sure you even theoretically could walk between arbitrary terminals. So there wasn't a good central location to put it. Therefore, it made siting the T stop somewhere convenient for the planners given that Airport isn't a terminating stop as it is at a lot of airports a good option.
The Silver Line has worked fine the few times I've taken it even if it is a bit odd. But I live way west of the city so I'm not usually going from downtown to the airport.
Regarding SFO, "The SFO BART Station is located on the Departures/Ticketing Level of the International Terminal (Boarding Area G side)." - it is located at the airport (you need to take AirTrain from other terminals, though).
Not sure why connection to Caltrain matters, as BART itself has about 7 times more daily raiders and connects to more places.
Not sure why connection to Caltrain matters, as BART itself has about 7 times more daily raiders and connects to more places.
Most cities have some sort of public or quasi-public (e.g. privately-operated buses) transportation.
But these can involve multiple mode changes, can be awkward with any amount of luggage, and can take a long time. I'm guessing there is some "don't need to take a taxi/Uber" option in most cities but there are definitely airports like Las Vegas and Dulles where it's not very practical. (And of course it depends on where you're going within the metro area which isn't always the financial district or whatever the official "downtown" is.)
But these can involve multiple mode changes, can be awkward with any amount of luggage, and can take a long time. I'm guessing there is some "don't need to take a taxi/Uber" option in most cities but there are definitely airports like Las Vegas and Dulles where it's not very practical. (And of course it depends on where you're going within the metro area which isn't always the financial district or whatever the official "downtown" is.)
It's not common in the US because in the early 70 airlines got congress to prohibit cost sharing mass transit projects between muni's and airports. That's why it's always a spur line instead of a normal stop when it exists. Because the project has to be funded as a separate thing.
So if you wonder why for instance the light rail in Santa Clara county passes 100 feet from the airport. But the nearest stop is a mile and a half away, that's why.
I only know this because congress very recently repealed that law.
So if you wonder why for instance the light rail in Santa Clara county passes 100 feet from the airport. But the nearest stop is a mile and a half away, that's why.
I only know this because congress very recently repealed that law.
LaGuardia in NYC requires transferring to a bus for the final connection from the subway to the airport. It’s infuriatingly difficult to get right even after doing the route many times. I’d often call a Lyft/Uber at 10x the price of the subway+bus because the public transit route is that annoying to deal with.
It’s a little better than it used to be with at least dedicated buses to Woodside and Jackson Heights instead of having to take some random local Queens bus. Still bad though, and Cuomo’s AirTrain route is beyond stupid.
JFK’s story isn’t great, Jamaica and the LIRR aren’t designed for tourists, but it’s much better than LGA.
JFK’s story isn’t great, Jamaica and the LIRR aren’t designed for tourists, but it’s much better than LGA.
When I had to go to NYC for work a lot I always flew into Newark and did the train from there. That was nice, worked out nicely, including the flight from Toronto island airport, very smooth. Was a bit shocked the first time I flew LaGuardia at what a pain that was.
They're not designed for tourists, and Penn Station has all the ambience of a shoebox, but at least the connection from AirTrain to LIRR is seamless; find out which platform has the first train departing from Penn (always something around) and then take 1 elevator. You'll have to stand near the door with your lugggage though.
The real issue is that tourists just go "oh I should use the subway", partially because the LIRR doesn't obviously say it's going to Manhattan in the Jamaica terminal, partially because people are way more familiar with the subway, and partially because the fare is much lower (~$7 lower during peak hours). That connection is bad.
The real issue is that tourists just go "oh I should use the subway", partially because the LIRR doesn't obviously say it's going to Manhattan in the Jamaica terminal, partially because people are way more familiar with the subway, and partially because the fare is much lower (~$7 lower during peak hours). That connection is bad.
JFK and EWR don't have direct connections to public transit, but instead offer a mediocre people mover to a nearby train station. LGA only has a bus.
[deleted]
Honolulu airport shuttle cost something like $50 which seemed like a straight scam so we walked to "public bus" with reasonable fee where driver refused us from boarding because of large suitcase.
Ended up asking a random stranger if they wanna pool and split the taxi fee - he initially freaked out a bit, but then 5 seconds later agreed to it. Had a nice conversation and they ended up paying for it...
Ended up asking a random stranger if they wanna pool and split the taxi fee - he initially freaked out a bit, but then 5 seconds later agreed to it. Had a nice conversation and they ended up paying for it...
Washington DC. Though that was the least of my worries on that airport.
DTW doesn't, and we've been lambasting that for decades.
This is a great article. So much relevant commentary not just about airports, but also many facets of North American Life.
One example: where are they local diners? Airports, truck stops, malls, and suburbia. We are losing local food with character and flavour, instead submitting to greasy salty national chain stores.
Noise is another issue.
Good read.
I think the issues with American airports comes down to two things: money and control. Airports want to make money off of the shops inside, because they view passengers as a captured audience. The right business can survive in an airport, but not all of them. Especially in small airports. Really, I think it comes down to control. Airports view passengers as children needing to be controlled. They don’t need short term hotels, they don’t need showers, all of that is expensive and will lead to abuse, so the best way to control passengers is to give them as little comfort as possible.
In a way, an airport is a lot like a prison.
In a way, an airport is a lot like a prison.
Aside: I love independent blogs like this where the author is so passionate about a very particular topic. The enthusiasm radiates through their posts and gets one really excited about the subject. This blog in particular reminds me of http://texashighwayman.com/ due to its focus on travel and transit, with slightly less detail and specificity. I wish there were a way to more easily discover these.
I don't have a huge variety of airport experience, but after about 40 trips in the last three years it's an efficient security I value most.
In Brussels Airport there's a single security hall with a huge amount of lanes that are opened depending on demand. I've never had to wait more than a few minutes. You go to a "filling station" where the very large trays are automatically fed to the lower part of the station. Three people can put their things in trays in parallel. There's no operator at the machine, the images are checked centrally, and automatically pushed to the side when flagged. It's easy, modern and just completely frustration free.
The rest of the Brussels Airport experience is a little different depending on which gates you're at (Schengen or non-Schengen) but still usually quite good in my opinion.
In Brussels Airport there's a single security hall with a huge amount of lanes that are opened depending on demand. I've never had to wait more than a few minutes. You go to a "filling station" where the very large trays are automatically fed to the lower part of the station. Three people can put their things in trays in parallel. There's no operator at the machine, the images are checked centrally, and automatically pushed to the side when flagged. It's easy, modern and just completely frustration free.
The rest of the Brussels Airport experience is a little different depending on which gates you're at (Schengen or non-Schengen) but still usually quite good in my opinion.
Or just abolish the security theater that is the boarding search. The TSA misses the majority of weapons at their screening points, it is obvious to everyone that ~nobody permitted boarding wants to hijack planes, or planes would be hijacked all the time, and they aren't.
The whole thing is a gigantic waste of time. Europe lets you keep your shoes on, in the US you have to get fingerprinted for Precheck to get to leave on your shoes and not get jammed into the naked scanner.
The whole thing is a gigantic waste of time. Europe lets you keep your shoes on, in the US you have to get fingerprinted for Precheck to get to leave on your shoes and not get jammed into the naked scanner.
My belief is the American ruling class is terrified of the working and under classes. Airports are where they can't escape having to interact with ordinary people. And that's why security theater exists.
The "American ruling class" are probably flying private out of Teterboro, not riding Spirit out of LaGuardia.
Security theater was a pretty direct response to 9/11. Now no politician wants to roll it back lest they be the fall guy if another terrorist attack happens after that.
Security theater was a pretty direct response to 9/11. Now no politician wants to roll it back lest they be the fall guy if another terrorist attack happens after that.
BRU does have an efficient "filling station" at security (I like that), though many other airports have similar setups.
The train connection from Zaventem to Brussels is also excellent, and they're doing a great job with COVID testing right now.
The train connection from Zaventem to Brussels is also excellent, and they're doing a great job with COVID testing right now.
Douglas Adams said it best — “It can hardly be a coincidence that no language on earth has ever produced the expression, 'As pretty as an airport.’”
Picking out Boston to criticize transit options from airports seems an odd choice. The Silver Line is sort of a transit kludge (dedicated lane bus that, as noted, switches from electric to propane (?) at one point). And I guess the author is connecting from somewhere that requires changing lines. But you can literally see the airport from downtown and there is a transit option.
Yes but it’s so nice in other airports. Like most European airports have dedicated train stations in the basement. Not transit links or a bus going to another bus that you need to take a train to terminal z to get on, but an actual train station that has you straight away integrated with the rail network. Go down a couple of escalators and hop on a train to your destination. Easy.
It depends where you're going. The Silver Line stops at each terminal so there's very little walking required unlike some airports. And if you're going to the Seaport area or (near) the Financial District, there are no transfers required.
And in the case of Boston connecting directly to the rail network as opposed to subway system wouldn't make a lot of sense. You're probably not talking Amtrak if you just flew in and the commuter rail probably doesn't make a lot of sense either.
And in the case of Boston connecting directly to the rail network as opposed to subway system wouldn't make a lot of sense. You're probably not talking Amtrak if you just flew in and the commuter rail probably doesn't make a lot of sense either.
It doesn't make sense with the current state of US rail, but in Europe the equivalent of commuter rail (in terms of distance covered and speed) runs on a pretty decent schedule during daylight hours at a reasonable price, a far cry from premium US commuter rail that barely runs during the middle of the day. (They also generally run through the city center to the other side of the city, but the N-S tunnel is a whole nother can of worms.)
Boston Logan is the regional international airport, and if the trains were frequent and fast enough there's no reason why one shouldn't theoretically be able to take the train from a suburb to the airport. You'd save enough money from the long-term parking alone.
Boston Logan is the regional international airport, and if the trains were frequent and fast enough there's no reason why one shouldn't theoretically be able to take the train from a suburb to the airport. You'd save enough money from the long-term parking alone.
When Europe does the airport rail connection well, there are both local and long-distance options from the airport railway station.
Bearing in mind it's Sunday at 17:00, here are the departures from Copenhagen airport for the next hour:
17:01 - Metro line M2 through Copenhagen (and every 5 minutes thereafter)
17:02 - Regional train to Karlskrona in Sweden (via Malmö), 230km away
17:06 - Regional train to Nivå (via Copenhagen), 40km away
17:18 - Regional train to Helsingør (via Copenhagen), 50km away
17:22 - Regional train to Kalmar in Sweden (via Malmö), 310km away
17:31 - Intercity train to Ålborg Airport (via Copenhagen, Odense, Århus, Ålborg, i.e. most of the way across Denmark), 420km
17:38 - Regional train to Helsingør (via Copenhagen)
17:42 - Intercity train to Ringsted (via Copenhagen)
17:42 - Regional train to Gothenburg in Sweden (via Malmö), 300km
17:46 - Regional train to Nivå (via Copenhagen)
17:58 - Regional train to Helsingør (via Copenhagen)
The trains continue through the night, ever hour for the longer distance ones, every half hour to Copenhagen. (Though the metro runs every 20 minutes all night too.)
Even though I could also take the metro, after a long flight I often take a regional train from the airport. It's about the same journey time, but the train is smoother, quiet and usually has far fewer people on it.
https://webapp.rejseplanen.dk/bin/stboard.exe/en?L=vs_rp4&pr... (and "Københavns Lufthavn").
Bearing in mind it's Sunday at 17:00, here are the departures from Copenhagen airport for the next hour:
17:01 - Metro line M2 through Copenhagen (and every 5 minutes thereafter)
17:02 - Regional train to Karlskrona in Sweden (via Malmö), 230km away
17:06 - Regional train to Nivå (via Copenhagen), 40km away
17:18 - Regional train to Helsingør (via Copenhagen), 50km away
17:22 - Regional train to Kalmar in Sweden (via Malmö), 310km away
17:31 - Intercity train to Ålborg Airport (via Copenhagen, Odense, Århus, Ålborg, i.e. most of the way across Denmark), 420km
17:38 - Regional train to Helsingør (via Copenhagen)
17:42 - Intercity train to Ringsted (via Copenhagen)
17:42 - Regional train to Gothenburg in Sweden (via Malmö), 300km
17:46 - Regional train to Nivå (via Copenhagen)
17:58 - Regional train to Helsingør (via Copenhagen)
The trains continue through the night, ever hour for the longer distance ones, every half hour to Copenhagen. (Though the metro runs every 20 minutes all night too.)
Even though I could also take the metro, after a long flight I often take a regional train from the airport. It's about the same journey time, but the train is smoother, quiet and usually has far fewer people on it.
https://webapp.rejseplanen.dk/bin/stboard.exe/en?L=vs_rp4&pr... (and "Københavns Lufthavn").
(2011?)
He likes Inchon Airport. It has its own K-drama, "Air City". More detail than you can ever want to know about how Inchon Airport works.
He likes Inchon Airport. It has its own K-drama, "Air City". More detail than you can ever want to know about how Inchon Airport works.
Year added above. Thanks!
Unfortunately I think a lot of these problems are the result of the relentless focus on money in the US. Most of the problems have an incumbent business interest that prevents change. For example free wifi , all those companies who presumably paid to have their expensive wifi options available (boingo?). Transit links- rental car companies would not be happy with increased transit links,also you make far less revenue from car parking and the companies who run your car parking would not be happy. I think you can continue in this way for a lot of the issues.
I’ll trade all of that just for some free luggage carts. Charging for them seems to specifically be an American thing and it isn’t doing our country any good image-wise.
I’m guessing the reason isn’t just profit, it’s also to pay for the infrastructure to collect the carts and shuttle them through the terminals and back to their corral. Okay, fine, but tell me how this suppose to feel when a passenger actually decides to pay the fee? If they’re arriving to the airport by taxi, they need to scuttle all their bags over to the corral, pay by credit card, slide out the cart, and then load it. And if someone’s driven them to the airport their car is now idling at the entrance even longer, causing other arrivals to wait.
You’d think this would become a lawsuit at some point, or at the very least airlines would realize they could make even more profit with additional luggage fees.
I’m guessing the reason isn’t just profit, it’s also to pay for the infrastructure to collect the carts and shuttle them through the terminals and back to their corral. Okay, fine, but tell me how this suppose to feel when a passenger actually decides to pay the fee? If they’re arriving to the airport by taxi, they need to scuttle all their bags over to the corral, pay by credit card, slide out the cart, and then load it. And if someone’s driven them to the airport their car is now idling at the entrance even longer, causing other arrivals to wait.
You’d think this would become a lawsuit at some point, or at the very least airlines would realize they could make even more profit with additional luggage fees.
You'll pay for those luggage carts, either through the fees the airport charges via the ticket, through taxes making everything slightly more expensive at your destination country or by charging you directly.
Once upon a time I was joking that the real reason for the airport security theater is to force you early onto the airport so you are to spend money out of sheer boredom.
Many airports do the opposite, try to shorten security time so that you spend more time purchasing products in the mall.
Similarly, flight info displays should be put right after security, but before the duty free shop, otherwise people hurry through the shop to check their flight.
Similarly, flight info displays should be put right after security, but before the duty free shop, otherwise people hurry through the shop to check their flight.
[deleted]
Bookstores: back in the 1980s, Reagan National (then just National) had an excellent bookstore. I know I picked up Vasily Askyonov's The Burn there, and I think I picked up Kingsley Amis's The Old Devils there. And I believe that Milwaukee actually had a used bookstore on one concourse.
> Americans haven’t figured out how to behave on an escalator. If you’re not in a hurry, stand on the right and enjoy the ride, allowing those of us with a flight to catch to walk on the left.
OMG so much this. Maddening how oblivious Americans are to the basic tenets of getting along in a society. Not surprisingly, the same selfish, oblivious people behave the same way while driving their cars.
OMG so much this. Maddening how oblivious Americans are to the basic tenets of getting along in a society. Not surprisingly, the same selfish, oblivious people behave the same way while driving their cars.
Americans haven’t figured out how to behave on an escalator. If you’re not in a hurry, stand on the right and enjoy the ride, allowing those of us with a flight to catch to walk on the left.
That's actually the first time I've heard that. I was always told to stand still and keep a hand on both rails for any escalator over one story for safety.
That's actually the first time I've heard that. I was always told to stand still and keep a hand on both rails for any escalator over one story for safety.
Here in Munich in the underground for a long time they advertised "walk on the left, stand on the right" however as a notable number of people wants to stand there are large clusters of people when a tran arrives at big stations trying to get to the right side, sonthey fried advertising "stand left and right" which would in theory be best use of capacity (still considering notable amount of people standing) however people didn't accept it and there always were people asking people to give was yin an unfriendly manner ...
This tabloid has a picture of the poster they used for that campaign: https://www.abendzeitung-muenchen.de/muenchen/links-und-rech...
This tabloid has a picture of the poster they used for that campaign: https://www.abendzeitung-muenchen.de/muenchen/links-und-rech...
BART said escalators break down after prolonged uneven weight: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-escalators-walki...
Long ago, I read that London Underground has escalators designed with the imbalance in mind. I can't find a citation for this.
What if the walk/stand zones are swapped every so often?
This is extremely common on just about any escalator in the US (and many other places).
Many escalators esp. older ones are not wide enough to allow two people to pass comfortably.
This is likely one of those cases where something became widespread in the US before other countries, so places had the benefit of looking at the US implementation (or just improvements of technology over time) before installing their own.
I notice it with elevators in my own country - I rarely encounter an older, shaky, rattly elevator in my own country... because we took so long before they were as widespread.
I notice it with elevators in my own country - I rarely encounter an older, shaky, rattly elevator in my own country... because we took so long before they were as widespread.
The first escalators in widespread use were in Paris and London.
But I think the real reason is cost: a metro system will pay for the extra capacity of a wide escalator. A shopping centre would prefer people not to hurry, can use the space for displaying goods, and thus chooses an escalator sized for one person.
But I think the real reason is cost: a metro system will pay for the extra capacity of a wide escalator. A shopping centre would prefer people not to hurry, can use the space for displaying goods, and thus chooses an escalator sized for one person.
While this may be true in the US it's not universal - some countries walk (and drive) on the left and escalator etiquette tends to follow
The trade off for nice airports seems to be landing an hour by surface transportation from where you actually want to be. Some airports, like JFK in NYC, have the worst of both worlds, but given a choice I’d rather an ugly, cramped, poorly laid out airport that is close to city center.
There are different levels when it comes to surface level transport. London Heathrow is pretty far outside the city but the Heathrow Express train, while not cheap, gets you to the centre of London in 15 minutes.
The same is physically possible at JFK but it’s such a clusterfuck of disconnected authorities that it’ll never happen. Case in point: NYC’s LaGuardia is finally getting an AirTrain and it’ll head away from the city before you get on a train going in the right direction. Baffling.
The same is physically possible at JFK but it’s such a clusterfuck of disconnected authorities that it’ll never happen. Case in point: NYC’s LaGuardia is finally getting an AirTrain and it’ll head away from the city before you get on a train going in the right direction. Baffling.
Heathrow express is very nice but Heathrow isn’t my idea of a great airport. Why do you have to walk 15-20 minutes to get to the gate once you get through security?
Great question. Until last year, Salt Lake City was probably the most convenient airport in all of the US. So what did they do? Tear it down and replace it with a new terminal that requires a 15-20 minute walk to get to any gate.
Maybe it’s necessary to spread things out like that to get the planes in and out quickly. But that still doesn’t explain why they can’t do some kind of people mover.
Of course, there's also the Piccadilly line right there--which is cheaper and depending on where you're going (I commonly stay around Trafalgar Square) can end up being just as fast door to door.
Public transit being actually right at the airport as opposed to somewhere connected by a bus or pokey airtrain of some sort makes a big difference.
In general, new light rail lines in particular have improved the public transit situation at a number of US airprots.
Public transit being actually right at the airport as opposed to somewhere connected by a bus or pokey airtrain of some sort makes a big difference.
In general, new light rail lines in particular have improved the public transit situation at a number of US airprots.
If you aren't lucky enough to fly to big enough city, your next best option for that 6AM flight from Stansted is 2-3 buses starting 2AM :|
>>> Of course, I am opposed to jet bridges on principle. I prefer the classic, drive-up airstairs. Some of the international stations I fly to still employ those old-timey stairs, and I always get a thrill from them.
The stairs also have fewer failure modes.
The stairs also have fewer failure modes.
I love the stairs, and especially when they bring stairs to the front and the rear of the plane, but they're not great for people with mobility challenges. I guess dual jetbridges could be an option to speed boarding and deboarding, but I've never seen that happen.
Multiple jetbridges is a thing. I've boarded a 787 in LHR over a secondary jetbridge (the first was for business class only).
> Some airports with international gates have two or even three bridges for larger aircraft with multiple entrances. In theory, this allows for faster disembarking of larger aircraft, though it is quite common, especially on aircraft such as Boeing 747s and Boeing 777s, to use one bridge for only passengers in first class and/or business class, while the other bridge is for the use of passengers in economy class. In some designs, the second jet bridge would even extend over the aircraft wing, being suspended from an overhead structure. This was, for example, originally adopted for most wide body gates at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. The Airbus A380 is unique in that both of its two passenger decks have outside access doors and so using loading bridges for each deck is possible, having the advantage of faster aircraft loading (in parallel).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_bridge#Advantages
> Some airports with international gates have two or even three bridges for larger aircraft with multiple entrances. In theory, this allows for faster disembarking of larger aircraft, though it is quite common, especially on aircraft such as Boeing 747s and Boeing 777s, to use one bridge for only passengers in first class and/or business class, while the other bridge is for the use of passengers in economy class. In some designs, the second jet bridge would even extend over the aircraft wing, being suspended from an overhead structure. This was, for example, originally adopted for most wide body gates at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. The Airbus A380 is unique in that both of its two passenger decks have outside access doors and so using loading bridges for each deck is possible, having the advantage of faster aircraft loading (in parallel).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_bridge#Advantages
How about triple jet bridges for an A380? https://youtu.be/64JXmuYZ7pA?t=55
Yeah, but I'm probably never flying on one of those. Almost all my flights are on narrow body planes.
They're also terrible for people with mobility issues and you're exposed to the elements.
They're also impractical for larger planes — you'll only use stairs on an A320 or B737.
I've disembarked from a B777 via stairs following an emergency landing. The stairs were narrower than the ones for a smaller aircraft, and much more wobbly. We were limited to 3 people at a time on them, so it was very slow.
The 777's door is also considerably higher up, about 5m vs. about 2.5m.
Size comparison: https://imgur.com/gallery/bxyI0Er
I've disembarked from a B777 via stairs following an emergency landing. The stairs were narrower than the ones for a smaller aircraft, and much more wobbly. We were limited to 3 people at a time on them, so it was very slow.
The 777's door is also considerably higher up, about 5m vs. about 2.5m.
Size comparison: https://imgur.com/gallery/bxyI0Er
Where do you have to pay for Wi-Fi? I hit about 15 different American airports back in 2019 and didn't run into this.
It's hit or miss; I'd say ~1/3 of airports are free or free-ish (e.g., 30 minutes of access after you watch this ad), but the rest seem to have the cancer that is Boingo.
I can't be sure, but from various details such as the WiFi gripe my guess is this article could be 10 years old.
The author’s comment about men not being able to use big fluffy pillows is sad, IMO. Who the fuck would care what someone thought of them being a pillow to an airport, unless they were deeply insecure and needed validation from strangers. I’m bringing a big fluffy pillow next time I fly.
While we’re on the topic, I’d also recommend guys wear yoga leggings on planes. There is a reason you see so many women do so. They keep you legs warm enough and don’t get bunched up like jeans or slacks do. Just get some lululemon align leggings and maybe some basketball shorts to wear over if you are feeling modest and make sitting for 12 hours a little less uncomfortable.
Seems like the authors comment worked in encouraging more men to take pillows on their flights!
Yes! Lol
> Why can’t every airport be like this?
Because in the real world, constraints exist?
> A fast, low-cost public transportation link to downtown.
When cities grew before airports and so the underground is already full of subways and infrastructure, it can be prohibitively expensive to build a new fast tunnel to downtown.
> but it’s the saturation of high-end boutiques that always confounds me
If the author studied the economics of airport shops they would no longer be confounded.
> Better dining options — i.e. fewer chain restaurants
Airports provide what they think customers want. Generally travelers want familiarity, which chain restaurants provide.
> Americans haven’t figured out how to behave on an escalator
And other countries are any better...? Try replacing "Americans" with "people".
All in all, this post is just a weird personal rant. Yes, airports aren't built to what the author personally desires. But when the author isn't going to do any research as to why they are the way they are, or accept that many of the things they want cost more money than people are willing to spend on airline tickets -- reading this post is just a waste of time.
Because in the real world, constraints exist?
> A fast, low-cost public transportation link to downtown.
When cities grew before airports and so the underground is already full of subways and infrastructure, it can be prohibitively expensive to build a new fast tunnel to downtown.
> but it’s the saturation of high-end boutiques that always confounds me
If the author studied the economics of airport shops they would no longer be confounded.
> Better dining options — i.e. fewer chain restaurants
Airports provide what they think customers want. Generally travelers want familiarity, which chain restaurants provide.
> Americans haven’t figured out how to behave on an escalator
And other countries are any better...? Try replacing "Americans" with "people".
All in all, this post is just a weird personal rant. Yes, airports aren't built to what the author personally desires. But when the author isn't going to do any research as to why they are the way they are, or accept that many of the things they want cost more money than people are willing to spend on airline tickets -- reading this post is just a waste of time.
> And other countries are any better...? Try replacing "Americans" with "people".
Japanese escalator etiquette is impeccable. I used to take a four-story escalator at rush hour every morning and even though I’d walk past about 200 meters of people in line, the right side was always free for walkers.
It’s gotten slightly worse in the past decade or so—I won’t speculate about the reasons—but people doing it wrong are very much still rare enough to be the unexpected annoyance.
Japanese escalator etiquette is impeccable. I used to take a four-story escalator at rush hour every morning and even though I’d walk past about 200 meters of people in line, the right side was always free for walkers.
It’s gotten slightly worse in the past decade or so—I won’t speculate about the reasons—but people doing it wrong are very much still rare enough to be the unexpected annoyance.
> If the author studied the economics of airport shops they would no longer be confounded.
Can you elaborate? I concur with the author. If there were more reasonable priced shops, I would probably spend 3-4x what I do. Smaller profit but greater wallet share.
Can you elaborate? I concur with the author. If there were more reasonable priced shops, I would probably spend 3-4x what I do. Smaller profit but greater wallet share.
I'm no expert on the economics of airport shops, but here's my take:
Rent prices for airport shops are high and space is limited. If you reduce your prices to be more reasonable, you are relying on volume to make ends meet. This is challenging because space for inventory is limited and expensive in an airport.
So, most shops in airports either (1) have to charge high prices to make a profit, or (2) aren't actually in the business of making a profit and are instead a marketing tactic for big brands. There's a lot of foot traffic in airports, so the big luxury brands will be willing to spend money on an airport storefront, even if it comes out as a net loss on sales.
Rent prices for airport shops are high and space is limited. If you reduce your prices to be more reasonable, you are relying on volume to make ends meet. This is challenging because space for inventory is limited and expensive in an airport.
So, most shops in airports either (1) have to charge high prices to make a profit, or (2) aren't actually in the business of making a profit and are instead a marketing tactic for big brands. There's a lot of foot traffic in airports, so the big luxury brands will be willing to spend money on an airport storefront, even if it comes out as a net loss on sales.
Which is funny, because the airport versions of most luxury stores are just way worse than the regular stores. Poorly attended to and somehow always manage to look cheap.
One high profit “receipt” is better than several smaller profit receipts summing to the same total. Why? Lower transaction cost.
> Airports provide what they think customers want. Generally travelers want familiarity, which chain restaurants provide.
Indeed. For most people at an airport, they have a time boxed period to eat. The sitdown place with unknown ticket times does not work.
Indeed. For most people at an airport, they have a time boxed period to eat. The sitdown place with unknown ticket times does not work.
The other thing is an unknown restaurant in an airport is an unknown quantity - it could be garbage or it could be really good, but if you're travelling and just want food to be done with, the chain restaurants provide predictable averageness.
Indeed, this is why some around the world view Americans with the stereotype of only eating McDonald's when they get to their country. (Or British who only eat breakfasts or fish n chips etc)
It's predicable and just gets food done with. Life is an unknown quantity.
It's predicable and just gets food done with. Life is an unknown quantity.
It's gotten better in recent years. In most airports, I can find something decent like one of the premium burger places which I rather like in general or an outpost of a good local restaurant. But, yeah, numerically-speaking airports are dominated by well-known lowest common denominator national chains.
Come to Munich - there is a brewery right at the airport. Can't be more local.
https://www.munich-airport.de/airbraeu/en
It’s an airport restaurant, of course they’re going to be quick about it.
> And other countries are any better...? Try replacing "Americans" with "people".
Yes, I wouldn't extend it to all people of any nationality, but e.g. London tends to have better escalator behaviour because they're so frequently encountered by large groups of people on subways, and last time I was there, even some stations had signs to encourage the "keep right if standing".
Yes, I wouldn't extend it to all people of any nationality, but e.g. London tends to have better escalator behaviour because they're so frequently encountered by large groups of people on subways, and last time I was there, even some stations had signs to encourage the "keep right if standing".
> When cities grew before airports and so the underground is already full of subways and infrastructure, it can be prohibitively expensive to build a new fast tunnel to downtown.
I would say London is a clear counter argument to this. There was no need for a new underground tunnel, the Heathrow Express uses existing train track, just prioritised in such a way that it gets to the centre of the city in 15 minutes.
I would say London is a clear counter argument to this. There was no need for a new underground tunnel, the Heathrow Express uses existing train track, just prioritised in such a way that it gets to the centre of the city in 15 minutes.
That's not a counterargument, just an example where it happened to work out.
In many places, existing train track isn't suitable. E.g. there's only a single track in either direction so a fast train can't pass a local one that makes every stop, or the track/signaling isn't designed for high speeds, or a combination of tracks with incompatible gauges would be needed, or a million other reasons.
Just because it works in one place doesn't mean it works as a general rule.
In many places, existing train track isn't suitable. E.g. there's only a single track in either direction so a fast train can't pass a local one that makes every stop, or the track/signaling isn't designed for high speeds, or a combination of tracks with incompatible gauges would be needed, or a million other reasons.
Just because it works in one place doesn't mean it works as a general rule.
Heathrow Airport didn't open with a railway connection.
The Underground (metro) was extended to the airport in 1975-1977.
The first heavy rail connection opened in 1998.
A significant extension to this connection (trains right through London) should open in 2023.
There are also buses, which can be useful for the nearby suburbs, but are probably used more by staff than passengers. (The one time I used one of the local buses, it stopped at the freight terminal, then a staff-only entrance, then the passenger terminals.)
Most medium or large airports in Europe have a rail connection to the nearest city. Smaller ones have express buses to the city centre; at the smallest ones the buses are only scheduled at flight arrival/departure times.
The Underground (metro) was extended to the airport in 1975-1977.
The first heavy rail connection opened in 1998.
A significant extension to this connection (trains right through London) should open in 2023.
There are also buses, which can be useful for the nearby suburbs, but are probably used more by staff than passengers. (The one time I used one of the local buses, it stopped at the freight terminal, then a staff-only entrance, then the passenger terminals.)
Most medium or large airports in Europe have a rail connection to the nearest city. Smaller ones have express buses to the city centre; at the smallest ones the buses are only scheduled at flight arrival/departure times.
New track was built for the Heathrow Express, it opened in 1998. 2 × 5 miles of tunnel, plus a bridge/flyover to cross the Great Western Mainline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Express
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Express
> When cities grew before airports and so the underground is already full of subways and infrastructure, it can be prohibitively expensive to build a new fast tunnel to downtown.
If the city is already full of subways, the job should be easier, not harder - now you only have to tunnel your way to the closest existing station and then extend the line.
If the city is already full of subways, the job should be easier, not harder - now you only have to tunnel your way to the closest existing station and then extend the line.
If only it were that simple. So now your supposedly "fast" direct train is stuck waiting behind a local subway that makes every single stop, because there's only a single train track in each direction.
Believe me, if the job were easier, it would be done everywhere already.
Believe me, if the job were easier, it would be done everywhere already.
A frequent, local subway can be as fast as a "big" train plus a connection. From Copenhagen Airport to the centre, by ordinary metro, is 17 minutes. I'll take a subway connection over a bus any day.
Anyway, this comment suggests the reason it's a problem in the USA is regulation. (I can't speculate on why this happened, I don't see which political group is supposed to benefit.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27944624
Anyway, this comment suggests the reason it's a problem in the USA is regulation. (I can't speculate on why this happened, I don't see which political group is supposed to benefit.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27944624