Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7941 times:
Of the ones I've visited (CDG, LHR, FRA, MUC, AMS), I'd have to say AMS. Easy to navigate (albeit quite spread out), no buses to deal with, doesn't look like it's under construction all the time, and has an excellent variety of shops (plus a killer observation deck ).
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25145 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7769 times:
Air France's hub at CDG offers the greatest number of connection opportunities of any European hub.
The airport also has the largest capacity growth potential of the current major European hub airports.
However if one want to look at it on a per carrier basis, Lufthansa ranks number one with the greatest connectivity, but this is only accomplished via split hubs in FRA & MUC.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
BrightCedars From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7645 times:
I'll cast my vote for AMS! Although BRU is very nice too but lacks the essential quality of a real hub nowadays: lots of routes and airlines!
Actually, I'm starting to prefer driving to AMS (2 hours from home at 0€/$ with my company car) than to fly from BRU (10 mins drive from home).
The fact that I'm finding cheaper fares out of AMS on the same airlines and same days than BRU is also part of the equation (got an AZ return AMS-BEY for a factor of 1 while their BRU-BEY on the same dates was like 1.6 and the cheapest from BRU - on OA, if they exist by then - was like 1.25).
PavlovsDog From Norway, joined Sep 2005, 657 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7526 times:
1. CPH- Really nice. Great shopping. Like a smaller, nicer Amsterdam
2. AMS- Good but not as good as CPH.
3. MUC- For a new airport it could me more stylish. It works fine but it's like they didn't want to spend any money on embellishment. Lack of English signage at some of the service establishments is a big minus.
LHR- I gladly pay more to transfer elsewhere. One time flying OSL-LHR-YYZ on SK/AC I missed my flight due to the absurd security procedures. My flight from OSL got in 25 minutes late. I thought that would be no problem. There was still 45 minutes until departure. The gate for the AC flight was opposite from where the SK flight arrived so I thought I had plenty of time to spare. At the gate there was security with a metal detector and the whole nine yards. As I approached it I was told that I would first have to go through the security at the center of the terminal. The lines there were of course long. I can't see that the security procedure there was any more comprehensive than that at the gate. I missed my flight.
That was 7 years ago and the last time I used LHR as anything but a destination.
777klm From China, joined Apr 2005, 530 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7422 times:
Off course I like my home airport AMS, good connections, clean, more than enough shops, a lot of space, clear announcements, and a very good home carrier!
I also like the Scandinavian airports ARN and CPH, always clean, nice people and state of the art!
Cph757 From Denmark, joined Sep 2005, 684 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7397 times:
I think AMS i a bit better than CPH, offering more services, and they have the observation deck. But CPH Is a really nice airport, and even though you something have to walk a lot, it's much less walking than AMS.
Those two are my favourite choices.
When it comes to CDG, i would call it the worst I have experienced.
Quoting B707321C (Reply 16): CDG - Very good, when you get used to it (except transfer between Term 1 and Term 2). Probably have the best connections. Friendly staff.
You have to get used to it, because the navigation and signing in terminal 2 is awful (read: French). The staff is not especially helpful. The design makes the terminals hard to maneuvre in no time because of crowding. The shops close even before the sun goes down, and they are not where people want them. Transferring inside T2, you have to exit a sterile area and re-enter another, resulting in another time consuming security check, why? The only nice thing I can think about with CDG (having only visited T2) is the departure monitors at the long haul gates, showing destination and weather information, and off course the skywindow in Terminal 2E
Last flight: SAW-CPH on H9 on 02/11/09 - Next Flights: 23/12/09 CPH-AAL on QI, 30/12/09 CPH-LHR on SK, 19/01/10 CPH-CDG-
Buckieboy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7390 times:
My vote also goes for AMS for many of the reasons stated above. Also, I feel that I am never more than 20 minutes walk from any two gates. I've never stepped outside the terminal, so I cannot say what its like to get hire cars etc (a particular gripe with LHR), however as a transit passenger I have never had any negative experiences.
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7642 posts, RR: 35
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 7370 times:
AMS is my favourite Hub, since it's the home of KLM. Easy to connect as well and a pleasant airport overall.
FRA is a great Hub, thanks to LH and it's strong Star Alliance Presence there, your destination possibilities are almost endless. The airport is somewhat crowded, hard to navigate (for first timers) and dirty, yet it does have some charm. Not to mention the worlds most incredible observation deck.
Hjulicher From Liechtenstein, joined Feb 2005, 873 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7321 times:
I've flown through FRA, AMS, CDG, PRG, MUC and BCN and of course SVO. Whenever possible, I try to connect in AMS. Ever since I was young, AMS offers more to its passengers than any other terminal in europe. In terms of ease for airlines, AMS is tricky and taxi times are longer than say MUC, but for passengers once in the terminal, I think AMS is much better than MUC. MUC is a nice airport, but for how new it is, it's very outdated is some respects. In AMS schengen countries are nicely split between concourses, making connecting an ease. The staff is incredible helpful, and the airport is constantly being upgrades. KLM/NW is also a great alliance to fly with when travelling to/from North America. They have great shops as well as many restaurants, and I even remember the very important internet cafe someplace on the 2nd floor. Getting into AMS is very easy as well, and much faster than from CDG and much, much, much faster/shorter than from MUC.
MUC is a great airport, but for being built only 10 years ago, it suffers some flaws that you wouldn't expect. This is true of CDG as well. Why is it that once you enter the gates area in these two airports, you're stuck sitting there with no place to roam or go? It would make more sense to me to have the gates area filled with shops and places to eat while waiting for the flight. Also, terminal one has 4 concourses, and you cannot walk to each one without re-entering germany. This of course isn't very convenient. When arriving from AMS, I had to go through a pseudo passport control, and them baggage arrival is sort of awkward too. Nevertheless pleasant and not negative. I didn't like the long underground walk from the terminal though to get to the train station. I like walking, but it was all underground, and with all your stuff... skis, two bags, carry-on luggage, it's a far distance to walk.
BCN also has a nice airport, but I know that it is in no way a hub like the others.