But Foy Allen Edelman, a cookbook author from Raleigh, N.C., had another suggestion: how about installing reclining chairs that have a compartment underneath where you can stash a small carry-on bag?
This would probably triple the number of lost bags at the airport, all of which currently generate security events.
Despite the fact that (a) people often do sleep on them, mostly by taking up 3-4 adjoining seats, and (b) sleeping in airports is a common and reasonable goal.
Reasonable goals for the passengers don't necessarily coincide with the goals of those running the airports. I think it's reasonable for me not to be treated like a potential terrorist every time I fly, but I can understand why the airports feel they have to do that.
Those running the airports could see to it that there isn't a reason to fall asleep or need sleep in airports, rather than making it difficult to do so.
The problem is space, reclining chairs will probably take up more space and need maintenance, not to mention the cost per chair and how to justify it. Airports and Airlines want to make the process of boarding more streamlined...investing in chairs that comfort the wait due to delays are a waste to them and a problem that needs fixing prior to the delay. Sure you have the elements to deal with, bad weather etc. which we all accept. The funny side of this post is that we all forget about when we eventually board the plane and it takes 1 hour to get to the runway to take off. Then 8 hours stuck in a chair that is less friendly than the one this post is complaining about. ;-)
I get that facilities are to a great extent an externality to the airlines, but don't they compete and pay for airport gates? Can't facilities grants be factored into the bidding process?
I would think the gates are not airline specific due to flexibility for when things go wrong such as aircraft docking requirements not working. Currently they simply change the gate. Therefore this "Comfortability" issue would need to be a Airport expenditure and would have to be rolled out across the entire airport. Not sure all airports will want their landing rates increased for this reason as not all are on the same rates or sizes / no gates etc. The other problem is the more comfortable the waiting area chairs are the more uncomfortable the aircraft will feel when they eventually board.
Yeah, Changi takes the cake as far as I'm concerned for "best airport". In the US, though, I think that award has to go to PDX- airport-wide free wifi, plenty of microbrews, and three branches of Powell's Books.
Sky Harbor airport in Phoenix has coin-operated showers (which I was very much thankful for, as I'm sure were the folks who had to sit next to me on an outbound flight).
As long as the airines/airports have no incentive to improve things, nothing will be done. Real competition is needed, but I don't see where it might come from - maybe people deciding to stop traveling by plane.
Airline passengers are captive audiences, as far as the airport management is concerned. Anything that lets the passengers relax (for free) is only grudgingly given: the goal is keep passengers moving, hopefully through the shops, or if they must sit, hopefully in a restaurant, bar or cafe where they'll spend some money before being shifted on, like the temporarily homeless people they are.
Reading this, my first thought was that it's certainly nice that Heathrow Terminal 5 has faster than normal baggage reclaim and smoother security procedures, and that Calgary International Airport has free wi-fi outside the Tim Hortons, but it's never going to sway my decision. If I have to travel by air, I have to travel by air.
Then I actually thought about recent times I've travelled by plane and I realised that competition does exist in London at least. I have:
Spent £50 more (a 70% fare increase) to fly to and from London City Airport. LCY is smaller and as such seems to be much more efficiently run. There's no long walk/shuttle between security and the gate. Security takes all of 5 minutes at most. The check-in desks have no or very short queues and there's seating nearby if you do have to wait. It's closer to the city centre so there's a 20 minute transfer instead of an hour long transfer between the airport and London. This extra expenditure netted me a nicer airline as well, but the main justification was the airport. About £20 of the cost was mitigated by not having to travel to another airport on the outskirts of London (with the exception of the ~£8 journey to and from Heathrow)
Spent £50 more (a 10% fare increase) to fly to and from London Heathrow Terminal 5. The terminal opened in 2008 and is very modern. Baggage reclaim seems faster than other airports I've visited, the overall layout is more sane and security tends to move quite fast for an international airport. It's certainly worth a little extra in my opinion.
There's room for improvement. I still prefer the 4 hr 30 train journey from London to Edinburgh v. the similar priced 1 hr plane journeys. Air travel might win if it can beat the convenience of just turning up at the train station 20 minutes before the train leaves, only paying a small extra fee if I want the freedom of using any train that day instead of a specific train and compete with the fact that the train stations are in city centres, whereas the airports are on city outskirts. These problems are quite hard or impossible to solve, so it's going to have to try harder in other ways. Oh, and the trains have (somewhat spotty in parts) wifi as well.
I know what you mean about LCY - just a pleasure to use. It's a pain if you have to head over to say, Richmond or Ruislip, but for the centre or east of London, it's a dream. I choose it every time I go to London (which is always short-haul).
I also choose to travel Porter whenever it's possible when I'm going to or leaving Toronto - Toronto City airport is incrediby central (less than 1km from the central business district?), with added bonus 2 minute ferry ride from the city to the dinky little island.
Long haul from Europe into South-East Asia or the South Pacific/Australia from Europe, there is almost always a plane change.
Choosing between Dubai, HK, KL, Bangkok or Singapore is a no-brainer: Changi is hands-down winner. Long waits are handily dealt with by the free city tour or the short MRT trip into town to pop into Little India or Chinatown or the malls, or the beach or ... Airport facilities are generally awesome, especially the (groundside) basement Hawker food hall in the fourth sub-basement of Terminal 3. I love the rooftop pool on Terminal 1. And SQ is a good reason to choose Changi all on its own.
So yeah, I choose airports and airlines based on facilities and pleasure of use. For long-haul the differences can be a matter of only a couple of Euros, but the difference in the experience, the amount of saved time etc is significant.
Decent TGV services mean than I haven't had to use the god-awful CDG place for many years. I hope the same sorts of services will be implemented in the UK at some point.
one idea I had - You're in an airport bar - watching tv (usually sports). Why can't they customize the crawl at the bottom of the screen to show flight status?
21 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 54.3 ms ] threadThis would probably triple the number of lost bags at the airport, all of which currently generate security events.
Then I actually thought about recent times I've travelled by plane and I realised that competition does exist in London at least. I have:
Spent £50 more (a 70% fare increase) to fly to and from London City Airport. LCY is smaller and as such seems to be much more efficiently run. There's no long walk/shuttle between security and the gate. Security takes all of 5 minutes at most. The check-in desks have no or very short queues and there's seating nearby if you do have to wait. It's closer to the city centre so there's a 20 minute transfer instead of an hour long transfer between the airport and London. This extra expenditure netted me a nicer airline as well, but the main justification was the airport. About £20 of the cost was mitigated by not having to travel to another airport on the outskirts of London (with the exception of the ~£8 journey to and from Heathrow)
Spent £50 more (a 10% fare increase) to fly to and from London Heathrow Terminal 5. The terminal opened in 2008 and is very modern. Baggage reclaim seems faster than other airports I've visited, the overall layout is more sane and security tends to move quite fast for an international airport. It's certainly worth a little extra in my opinion.
There's room for improvement. I still prefer the 4 hr 30 train journey from London to Edinburgh v. the similar priced 1 hr plane journeys. Air travel might win if it can beat the convenience of just turning up at the train station 20 minutes before the train leaves, only paying a small extra fee if I want the freedom of using any train that day instead of a specific train and compete with the fact that the train stations are in city centres, whereas the airports are on city outskirts. These problems are quite hard or impossible to solve, so it's going to have to try harder in other ways. Oh, and the trains have (somewhat spotty in parts) wifi as well.
I also choose to travel Porter whenever it's possible when I'm going to or leaving Toronto - Toronto City airport is incrediby central (less than 1km from the central business district?), with added bonus 2 minute ferry ride from the city to the dinky little island.
Long haul from Europe into South-East Asia or the South Pacific/Australia from Europe, there is almost always a plane change.
Choosing between Dubai, HK, KL, Bangkok or Singapore is a no-brainer: Changi is hands-down winner. Long waits are handily dealt with by the free city tour or the short MRT trip into town to pop into Little India or Chinatown or the malls, or the beach or ... Airport facilities are generally awesome, especially the (groundside) basement Hawker food hall in the fourth sub-basement of Terminal 3. I love the rooftop pool on Terminal 1. And SQ is a good reason to choose Changi all on its own.
So yeah, I choose airports and airlines based on facilities and pleasure of use. For long-haul the differences can be a matter of only a couple of Euros, but the difference in the experience, the amount of saved time etc is significant.
Decent TGV services mean than I haven't had to use the god-awful CDG place for many years. I hope the same sorts of services will be implemented in the UK at some point.