5 ms·
The article cites various aviation consultants and airport authorities as pointing out funding and regulation issues that limit the ability to make improvements
by ThenAsNow 10y ago
The article cites various aviation consultants and airport authorities as pointing out funding and regulation issues that limit the ability to make improvements. Fair enough. But there are so many ways the experience could be made better without significant expenditure.
- Empower airport personnel to care about the airport in the same way we do national monuments, etc. Changi, etc., want to wow foreign visitors. We should have the same mindset.
- Completely streamline and eliminate to maximum feasible extent the omnipresent "security announcements". The infuriatingly grating and condescending messages that begin with "The Transportation Security Administration..." at airports like DCA are somewhere between rage-inducing and dehumanizing.
- Patrick Smith (quoted in the article) has long campaigned against the incredibly loud airport TVs blaring CNN or somesuch, and fortunately, some airports seem to be listening. The rest should as well.
- Seats whose primary purpose is to prevent anyone sleeping there also have the side effect of being quite uncomfortable. Is the sleeping people issue such a big deal that all passengers who want to sit have to pay the price?
There has to be a ton of low-hanging fruit like this which is probably why the U.S. airport experience is so detested - it's a sign of so much negligence that such relatively easy and inexpensive measures are not taken.
- superuser2 10y ago>Seats whose primary purpose is to prevent anyone sleeping there I don't understand this. Post 9/11, anyone who enters the terminal is either a paying customer with an upcoming flight or staff. It's not like a train station where you need to worry about the homeless hanging around.
- noobermin 10y agoI think the correct response then is especially in security for long layovers: cheap bunks for commuters to sleep in. Why not profit off the supposed "bums"? But yes, they'd have to be pretty cheap, but make them cheap enough and even the most comfortable terminal chairs will be less preferable to a couple of bucks for an hours sleep on a mediocre bunk.
- sjwright 10y agoYou wouldn't be saying that if you were forced to stand near the gate lounge because large numbers of sleeping people were monopolising all the available seats.
- noobermin 10y agoI fly a lot and that has never happened to me ever...unless your idea of large numbers of people is 2 in a radius of 200 m.
- superuser2 10y agoThose people paid for tickets same as you, their travels have worn them out enough that they want to sleep in a public place, they're stuck in airport limbo long enough to actually go to sleep, and you think they are "monopolizing" a resource of which you are more deserving... why, exactly? What do you imagine they should have done instead? Why can't you just walk a few gates down to one with an open seat?
- sjwright 10y agoIn your exceptionally narrow scenario, sure. Clearly you don't fly much.
- smelendez 10y agoI've never understood the recorded announcements. Why are you announcing carry-on liquid limits, or telling people not to park in the loading zones, in the gate areas. Why are you announcing that it's illegal to smoke in the airport, when it's been that way for decades?
- GregBuchholz 10y agoI've always wondered how many people really need instructions on how to use a seat belt.