Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
FromCDGtoSYD wrote:As long as you stick to Skyteam you'll be in terminal 2E/F
FlyRow wrote:Air France is ofcourse very well catered in domestic France.
IADCA wrote:I actually see it other way around. There is not likely to be enough O&D between secondary US cities and Paris for a (mostly) full flight. Thus you would need to funnel additional passengers into the seconday city so they can transfer at CDG.OP, from your user name I assume you're American. For that, the answer is pretty easy: Paris.
The reason has nothing to do with AMS or CDG as airports, simply that the O&D from almost everywhere in the US will be bigger to Paris than it will be to Amsterdam. More O&D usually means more high-value traffic, which means higher yields and more profitable flights. You need to find butts for the seats, and the connections over AMS and CDG are not materially different.
petertenthije wrote:IADCA wrote:I actually see it other way around. There is not likely to be enough O&D between secondary US cities and Paris for a (mostly) full flight. Thus you would need to funnel additional passengers into the seconday city so they can transfer at CDG.OP, from your user name I assume you're American. For that, the answer is pretty easy: Paris.
The reason has nothing to do with AMS or CDG as airports, simply that the O&D from almost everywhere in the US will be bigger to Paris than it will be to Amsterdam. More O&D usually means more high-value traffic, which means higher yields and more profitable flights. You need to find butts for the seats, and the connections over AMS and CDG are not materially different.
Why would DL want to do that? They are better of funneling transfer passengers through ATL or DTW. There they have economies of scale which makes it cheaper. Not the mention easier to sort out operational difficulties (delays, missed flights). Therefor the seconday USA city would be more reliant on passengers transferring in Europe. For this AMS so better suited then CDG>
That is of course assuming there are no special interests involved. If for instance the seconday US city has critical economic links with Paris (say the USA-HQ of a French company, or Paris having the Euro-HQ of a USA company), then all bets are off.
ojjunior wrote:CDG no matter what!
Don't know what's up with AMS security control that at any moment you might take 30-40 mins stuck there in a regular day wiating in the line.
Never seen such a long time and rude agentes anywhere eles in the world. Even MEX in all it's stone age structure in faster than AMS for departures.
And all other airports in the world have security clearance either so it's not a common problem (before someone start saying).
AMS never again, forget it!
PatrickZ80 wrote:ojjunior wrote:CDG no matter what!
Don't know what's up with AMS security control that at any moment you might take 30-40 mins stuck there in a regular day wiating in the line.
Never seen such a long time and rude agentes anywhere eles in the world. Even MEX in all it's stone age structure in faster than AMS for departures.
And all other airports in the world have security clearance either so it's not a common problem (before someone start saying).
AMS never again, forget it!
That's really uncommon at Amsterdam and only happens occasionally, but maybe you just were there at the wrong day. Mostly it's 5 minutes maximum. often there's no line at all. Also about being rude, I got a very different experience. They're strict indeed, but always very friendly.
IADCA wrote:Why should that matter? They are booking a flight to a final destination. Not a flight to a hub leading eventually to a destination. If that means connecting in DTW, ATL, AMS, CDG or the international space station; that makes no difference to most passengers. But it does matter to the airline. The airline ideally wants to push their passengers through the most efficient (cheapest) airport. And again, AMS is better set up for connecting passengers. The smaller O&D potential of amsterdam forced KLM and AMS to focus on connecting passengers. They were among the first to do so.That's true, but you're missing an important point: for the fact that AMS is a better airport to connect in than CDG (I agree wholeheartedly, by the way) to matter, the people shopping for the flight have to know that fact. I'd guess that the overwhelming majority of people shopping for connecting flights from secondary US cities can't find the Netherlands on a map, much less know the relative merits of Schiphol versus De Gaulle.
petertenthije wrote:IADCA wrote:Why should that matter? They are booking a flight to a final destination. Not a flight to a hub leading eventually to a destination. If that means connecting in DTW, ATL, AMS, CDG or the international space station; that makes no difference to most passengers. But it does matter to the airline. The airline ideally wants to push their passengers through the most efficient (cheapest) airport. And again, AMS is better set up for connecting passengers. The smaller O&D potential of amsterdam forced KLM and AMS to focus on connecting passengers. They were among the first to do so.That's true, but you're missing an important point: for the fact that AMS is a better airport to connect in than CDG (I agree wholeheartedly, by the way) to matter, the people shopping for the flight have to know that fact. I'd guess that the overwhelming majority of people shopping for connecting flights from secondary US cities can't find the Netherlands on a map, much less know the relative merits of Schiphol versus De Gaulle.