As pretty much everyone here knows, SkyTeam (unlike Oneworld and Star Alliance) has two major European hubs thanks to the AF-KL merger. In recent years, DL has been connecting mid-sized US cities to these hubs on their metal.

So with that being said, which European SkyTeam hub (AMS or CDG) is better? If you were a mid-sized airport planner and were lobbying DL for a TATL flight and DL gave you the choice of either one, which would it be? For purposes of this thread, these are the three criterias I am looking for.

1. Ease of access: Which one is easier to connect in?

2. Amenities: Which one has better Amenities (i.e, lounges, waiting areas, restaurants, shopping, etc)?

3. Number and types of destinations: Which one has more destinations and which one is better for specific connections such as Africa, India, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, etc?

Really comes down to traffic mix if you are a route planner.

AMS has higher portion of beyond conmections while CDG serves higher portion O&D demand.

For ease of access it would have to be Charles de Gaulle. Amsterdam is slot restricted and very much full, no room for additional flights. Charles de Gaulle still has some slots available, although at peak-hours it's just as full. The available slots are mostly in the off-hours. However when it comes to connections Amsterdam gets it. Charles de Gaulle has multiple terminals that aren't connected air-side and are quite far apart landside. It can be a maze to navigate. Amsterdam is much easier to navigate and most important, all airside is connected.

For amenities, definitely Amsterdam. Charles de Gaulle is a dump, really.

For number of destinations, it doesn't matter much. Both are about equal.

However I would like to throw a third Skyteam hub in the mix: Prague. Not one that you might think of at first glance, but CSA Czech Airlines is still a Skyteam airline. It's a very nice and convenient airport, not very big but unbeatable when it comes to ease of access and amenities. Only for number of connections it's less than Amsterdam or Paris.

Once again, I don't get the hate for CDG.
As long as you stick to Skyteam you'll be in terminal 2E/F and those are pretty nice, connecting between both can be a pain if you have to go to/from satellite L or M but thats about it.

One bad thing with T2E is that there is no automated luggage system between K-L-M so if your flight arrives in satellite M you'll have to wait at least 30 mins for your bags.

AMS was a breeze each of the three times I connected there. Only been through CDG once, but it was a bit of a hassle for a somewhat tight connection. Some of that was due to an AF to AY connection (not sure if they still partner), but I had to hustle between terminals and the airport staff weren't particularly helpful. That being said, I also connected at LAX on that routing and would happily take CDG over that shit-show in a heartbeat.

AMS. The two times that I had to connect in CDG, I had to put on my hiking boots to get between gates.

AMS has stepped up it's game with the central security. When the new KLM lounge (that house looks amazing) will be finished it will be even nicer.
However I still do think that for lounges CDG will be better, as CDG is a more premium destination and has to cater for that.
For quirks and fun things AMS is way better, funny and modern seating/relaxing concepts, a museum, garden and library etc. etc.

You can see that AMS is purpose build with connections in mind, CDG is more O&D.

Destination whise: KLM is more east africa, AF west africa. KLM is more in to China/Japan while AF is more in to Southeast Asia. Otherwise destiantions are very comparable.
In the EU AMS is a UK and Scandinavia heaven, tons of high frequency destinations. Especially in the UK, KLM is king.

Air France is ofcourse very well catered in domestic France.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

As long as you stick to Skyteam you'll be in terminal 2E/F

I was connecting through CDG from AF to OK and I had to go from 2E to 2D, which was a very difficult connection to make and our bags did not make it, so sticking to Skyteam is not the solution for smooth connections at CDG. When I did a similar connection in AMS (going from KL to DL), not only did my bags make it but the connection process was also smoother, and more pleasant so I will give my vote to AMS as the better hub.

FlyRow wrote:

Air France is ofcourse very well catered in domestic France.

True, however note that most domestic flights are served from Orly instead of Charles de Gaulle. This means if you got to transfer between an international and a domestic flight you might have to change airports in Paris. Not exactly convenient.

Amsterdam on the other hand doesn't have any domestic flights as the Netherlands is too small for it. They do however serve a lot of places in the country by bus. This bus service is operated by KLM and free to use for all KLM and partner airline passengers. It is however subject to booking since the busses don't have that much capacity, you can't just show up for the bus out of the blue.

Per the recent 2018 OAG hub connectivity index report AMS has a slight edge in connectivity within MCT rules.

Though CDG obviously is the bigger local market and still has ton of connections.

Personally, and even without having ever been in CDG, I'd still choose AMS. When I was there 2 years ago, it felt like being in a shopping mall minus the food courts. Sure, the concourse I boarded my flight to PTY looked run down in comparison to everything before passport control, but they get a pass because they were renovating. Maybe if I catch that AF flight to CDG eventually on a short trip to Europe I may get to know CDG. Whatever my opinion, chances are that it will still be far better than LHR for me (and I hate on LHR because of the fact that they do not publish the gate you're departing from until 60 minutes before departure, which I find outrageous).

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.

IADCA wrote:

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.

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.

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.

petertenthije wrote:

IADCA wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Unlucky me then... all the times I departed AMS were a nightmare, and it weren't once or twice... Always had better experiences at CDG.

IADCA wrote:

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.

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.

petertenthije wrote:

IADCA wrote:

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.

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.

1) Why are you talking about ATL and DTW? The entire thread is about AMS vs CDG, so I limited my discussion to be between those two.

2) The blackboard economics euphemism/papering over assumption that "most efficient" and "cheapest" are the same thing is pretty deceptive. They're not, at least not necessarily. It matters because the solution that is efficient for the business may not be the lowest cost, when one solution presents marginal revenue sufficient to overcome the cost gap. Which leads us back to precisely where we already were, being...

3) Passengers are indeed booking flights to final destinations - something you bolded as if I am too stupid to know what a connection is. But, as we've already discussed, those final destinations also include both Amsterdam and Paris. And O&D traffic to Paris is a major differentiator, even if it doesn't fill the majority of the plane. Fortunately, we have an easy and valid comparison, as the hub carriers at AMS and CDG are one company. That comparison is: how many US destinations are already served from AMS? How many from CDG? (The current answer, as far as I can tell is 25 for CDG and 18 from AMS, although I think that includes seasonal flights that may not be running now and the extremely limited CDG-SAN service.) That pretty much answers the question as to which one airlines "want to push their passengers through" if they're only choosing one.

4) Which brings us to the crux of the issue with the thread: the OP is missing the most important question, which is which of the flights offered would be more likely to succeed. If I were going strictly on the criteria in the OP, I'd say AMS by a mile. But the reality is that a flight to Paris and connecting at CDG is better than no flight at all, which is where the O&D demand to Paris does make a difference, especially to the hypothesized "mid-size airport planner" in the original post.