There's definitely a strong correlation between the quality of an airline and its main hub airport. For example, airports and airlines in East Asia (non-PRC) are some of the best in the world: JL and NH have NRT and HND, KE and OZ have ICN, CX with HKG, SQ with SIN. Meanwhile, in the US and Mainland China, you have both crappy airports and crappy airlines. In Europe, KLM/AMS and LH/MUC are quite nice.
This is no surprise since the airport experience is a major factor in the overall travel experience. Disorganized layouts, messy connections, dilapidated facilities, and rude ground staff leave a negative perception of the airline hubbed there. What are some examples of "good" airlines with terrible hub airports, or vice versa? I know this answer is very strongly opinion based. The most glaring example I find is Lufthansa at FRA, and on the flip side, United at SFO.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- PatrickZ80
- Posts: 4375
- Joined:
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
I wouldn't know of any crappy airports that are being used by quality airlines. Sure there are crappy airports, but they're mostly in use by crappy airlines.
Vice versa, you do find crappy airlines at quality airports. For example, VY has it's main base at BCN. Nothing wrong with BCN, but you really can't call VY the best airline in the world.
Vice versa, you do find crappy airlines at quality airports. For example, VY has it's main base at BCN. Nothing wrong with BCN, but you really can't call VY the best airline in the world.
-
- DolphinAir747
- Posts: 1901
- Joined:
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
I would argue NRT is a very poor airport for the great products of NH and JL.
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
Not to be Captain Obvious, but some of the countries which invest in the quality of their flag carriers also invest a lot in their showplace airports. That level of quality expectation in the market can even influence other private/semi-private carriers they frequently compete with.
Certainly that doesn’t apply to every case but I think the good airline / good airport correlation is primarily (a) caused by something like this, or (b) coincidence.
I don’t think having a “good airport” does anything to inspire the dominant airports there to up their service game.
And I don’t think airlines who offer top-quality service have a huge influence (in general) about transforming their big airports into world-class showplaces. Sure, a top-notch airline will do what they reasonably can to make the airport experience as good as they can. That does make a difference. But they can’t snap their fingers and get a new state of the art airport built.
Certainly that doesn’t apply to every case but I think the good airline / good airport correlation is primarily (a) caused by something like this, or (b) coincidence.
I don’t think having a “good airport” does anything to inspire the dominant airports there to up their service game.
And I don’t think airlines who offer top-quality service have a huge influence (in general) about transforming their big airports into world-class showplaces. Sure, a top-notch airline will do what they reasonably can to make the airport experience as good as they can. That does make a difference. But they can’t snap their fingers and get a new state of the art airport built.
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
theasianguy wrote:..... Meanwhile, in the US and Mainland China, you have both crappy airports and crappy airlines. .....
Wow, troll much?
Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
Well for a considerable time Qatar had to content with a cowshed of an airport with horrific bus transfers in the summer months and excessive overcrowding most of the day. All changed now of course.
I personally feel Aer Lingus is presently about to burst at the seems in Dublin. T2 is a good enough modern terminal and the US Preclearance facility is fantastic but the airlines refocusing on the DUB-HUB concept and turning themselves into a major European gateway carrier is really going to struggle. Even at peak times now T2 is congested with all stands occupied and flights having to use gates at T1. There's no expansion possible for checkin without taking desks from the other airlines side of the checkin hall and talk of a third terminal are still in the concept phase.
I personally feel Aer Lingus is presently about to burst at the seems in Dublin. T2 is a good enough modern terminal and the US Preclearance facility is fantastic but the airlines refocusing on the DUB-HUB concept and turning themselves into a major European gateway carrier is really going to struggle. Even at peak times now T2 is congested with all stands occupied and flights having to use gates at T1. There's no expansion possible for checkin without taking desks from the other airlines side of the checkin hall and talk of a third terminal are still in the concept phase.
My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
I just heard a long time ago in ANet forum Lagos is bad airport.
Q
Q
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
NZ is a good carrier with a useless airport in AKL - separate domestic/international cramped airports fed through massive bottlenecks with aircraft holding for available gates due lack of airport infrastructure.
I think QF suffers being based at SYD too, which is also a bit of a dump for the same reasons.
Others I can think of ET at ADD, TK at IST.. Can't say UA and SFO because UA is worse than SFO.
I think QF suffers being based at SYD too, which is also a bit of a dump for the same reasons.
Others I can think of ET at ADD, TK at IST.. Can't say UA and SFO because UA is worse than SFO.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
DolphinAir747 wrote:I would argue NRT is a very poor airport for the great products of NH and JL.
The JL side or terminal is pretty bad. The ANA Side is pretty nice actually. I'll be using T2 at NRT today to fly back to Honkers.
Keep on truckin'...
-
- theasianguy
- Posts: 177
- Joined:
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
DolphinAir747 wrote:I would argue NRT is a very poor airport for the great products of NH and JL.
Sure, NRT is by no means architecturally impressive. However, it is functionally one of the most efficient transit hubs in the world. I've done plenty of international to international transfers under 30 min. Plus, flights are on time for the most part. Give me NRT over PVG or PEK any day. Arguably, the worst thing about NRT is how hot it is inside the terminal (28 C).
hz747300 wrote:The JL side or terminal is pretty bad. The ANA Side is pretty nice actually. I'll be using T2 at NRT today to fly back to Honkers.
Terminal 1 has large collection of duty free and luxury stores airside. Every day between 3-6, the place is packed with transit passengers. I haven't been to T2 since they removed the shuttle system, so can't comment on that.
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
I have to agree on QR and the old DOH airport. Before Hamad International opened, it was an absolute nightmare passing through the airport. Not enough seating, dirty bathrooms, cramped boarding aras. The new airport is an absolute delight!
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
There are a few quality airlines that have or had bad airports, but these airports were mostly bad due to small size and the airline growing too quickly. For the most part, these airports are being replaced.
Examples include QR at old DOH. EY at AUH (new terminal coming), TK at IST (new airport coming).
It's not the airports are terrible, in fact, these airlines have tried to make the experience as good as possible, either through great lounges, or premium terminals, but they are heavily constrained.
-CXfirst
Examples include QR at old DOH. EY at AUH (new terminal coming), TK at IST (new airport coming).
It's not the airports are terrible, in fact, these airlines have tried to make the experience as good as possible, either through great lounges, or premium terminals, but they are heavily constrained.
-CXfirst
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
It would be interesting to see if there is a difference in the perspectives of passengers and flight crew.
Passengers obviously want ease of progress through the airport from check-in, through security or in transit. They may even look to things like quality duty free, decent lounges and free Wi-Fi. But what about the pilots?
An airport with all of the above but lengthy taxis and/or holds at the runway, lack or presence of navigational aids like CAT IIIB might result in a different ranking to that given by a passenger.
Passengers obviously want ease of progress through the airport from check-in, through security or in transit. They may even look to things like quality duty free, decent lounges and free Wi-Fi. But what about the pilots?
An airport with all of the above but lengthy taxis and/or holds at the runway, lack or presence of navigational aids like CAT IIIB might result in a different ranking to that given by a passenger.
Qui omnes despicit, omnibus displicit.
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
PER is pretty dodgy but is served by some top-notch airlines like QF, QR, EY, SQ etc.
Darwin - Perth - Sydney
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
I would say BA is a good airline, obviously not in the same league as CX, SQ, QR, NH, GA, HU, OZ and BR (Skytrax 5* airlines) but I would say LHR T3 is abysmal- very old, cramped and dull. LHR T5 on the other hand is pretty decent.
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
Aeromexico and MEX T2. Fantastic airline but the terminal kills the passenger experience. It looks cold, feels sterile, has few restrooms, and views are tough. AM's business class lounge isn't much better. A shame, because AM's crews and onboard product are far superior to its US counterparts.
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
I think Alaska Airlines is a very good airline. While SEA has a good on-time rep, and a beautiful concourse A and central food court with a great view of the field, a lot of it is dated looking.
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
What is a crappy airport?
For example DXB:
- Very long walk
- Signs not very clear.
- Long Qs for the Track Transit System.
- Lack of landslide faculties.
I could go on but with my daughter on crutches at every touch point without us asking the airport staff we would be shown a quick route or taken to the front of the Q.
For example DXB:
- Very long walk
- Signs not very clear.
- Long Qs for the Track Transit System.
- Lack of landslide faculties.
I could go on but with my daughter on crutches at every touch point without us asking the airport staff we would be shown a quick route or taken to the front of the Q.
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
WN a great airline, SAN, Terminal 1 is not adequate for the volume of traffic. Once in the secure area there are few food options with a plane to sit down and the gate areas are overcrowded. People connecting to/from Gates 1 and 2 have to go through security.
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
tonystan wrote:
I personally feel Aer Lingus is presently about to burst at the seems in Dublin. T2 is a good enough modern terminal and the US Preclearance facility is fantastic but the airlines refocusing on the DUB-HUB concept and turning themselves into a major European gateway carrier is really going to struggle. Even at peak times now T2 is congested with all stands occupied and flights having to use gates at T1. There's no expansion possible for checkin without taking desks from the other airlines side of the checkin hall and talk of a third terminal are still in the concept phase.
T2 is a lovely terminal but yes it is jammed at times. Ideally they would build a mirror of T2 and demolish T1 . T1 despite their efforts to bring it up to standard will always be the poor cousin of T2. The structure just feels too narrow and low ceilings. Maybe if they build T3 they can then demolish T1 and replace it.
-
- Adipasquale
- Posts: 831
- Joined:
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
aerorobnz wrote:NZ is a good carrier with a useless airport in AKL - separate domestic/international cramped airports fed through massive bottlenecks with aircraft holding for available gates due lack of airport infrastructure.
I think QF suffers being based at SYD too, which is also a bit of a dump for the same reasons.
Add to that that there isn't really sufficient seating at many of the AKL international gates to comfortably accommodate all the passengers. Passing through customs and immigration in AKL is none too impressive (or fast) either.
Terminals in SYD are a little better, and passing through customs has been better in my experience. However, the lack of connectivity between the domestic and international terminals is terrible.
Something else that could definitely use improvement as well at both SYD, and to a lesser extent, AKL are the check in counters. If you're not flying QF or VA in SYD or NZ in AKL, finding the check in counter for your airline is rather difficult due to lack of signage.
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W
Re: Good Airlines with Bad Airports?
WS - good airline but YYC (domestic and current international) and YYZ T3 are in dire need of some improvements.
A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut