3 ms·

The trade off for nice airports seems to be landing an hour by surface transportation from where you actually want to be. Some airports, like JFK in NYC, have t

The trade off for nice airports seems to be landing an hour by surface transportation from where you actually want to be. Some airports, like JFK in NYC, have the worst of both worlds, but given a choice I’d rather an ugly, cramped, poorly laid out airport that is close to city center.

afavour 5y ago
There are different levels when it comes to surface level transport. London Heathrow is pretty far outside the city but the Heathrow Express train, while not cheap, gets you to the centre of London in 15 minutes. The same is physically possible at JFK but it’s such a clusterfuck of disconnected authorities that it’ll never happen. Case in point: NYC’s LaGuardia is finally getting an AirTrain and it’ll head away from the city before you get on a train going in the right direction. Baffling.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Of course, there's also the Piccadilly line right there--which is cheaper and depending on where you're going (I commonly stay around Trafalgar Square) can end up being just as fast door to door. Public transit being actually right at the airport as opposed to somewhere connected by a bus or pokey airtrain of some sort makes a big difference. In general, new light rail lines in particular have improved the public transit situation at a number of US airprots.
- bradleyjg 5y ago
  Heathrow express is very nice but Heathrow isn’t my idea of a great airport. Why do you have to walk 15-20 minutes to get to the gate once you get through security?
  - boring_twenties 5y ago
    Great question. Until last year, Salt Lake City was probably the most convenient airport in all of the US. So what did they do? Tear it down and replace it with a new terminal that requires a 15-20 minute walk to get to any gate.
    - bradleyjg 5y ago
      Maybe it’s necessary to spread things out like that to get the planes in and out quickly. But that still doesn’t explain why they can’t do some kind of people mover.
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  If you aren't lucky enough to fly to big enough city, your next best option for that 6AM flight from Stansted is 2-3 buses starting 2AM :|

afavour 5y ago

There are different levels when it comes to surface level transport. London Heathrow is pretty far outside the city but the Heathrow Express train, while not cheap, gets you to the centre of London in 15 minutes. The same is physically possible at JFK but it’s such a clusterfuck of disconnected authorities that it’ll never happen. Case in point: NYC’s LaGuardia is finally getting an AirTrain and it’ll head away from the city before you get on a train going in the right direction. Baffling.

ghaff 5y ago
Of course, there's also the Piccadilly line right there--which is cheaper and depending on where you're going (I commonly stay around Trafalgar Square) can end up being just as fast door to door. Public transit being actually right at the airport as opposed to somewhere connected by a bus or pokey airtrain of some sort makes a big difference. In general, new light rail lines in particular have improved the public transit situation at a number of US airprots.
bradleyjg 5y ago
Heathrow express is very nice but Heathrow isn’t my idea of a great airport. Why do you have to walk 15-20 minutes to get to the gate once you get through security?
- boring_twenties 5y ago
  Great question. Until last year, Salt Lake City was probably the most convenient airport in all of the US. So what did they do? Tear it down and replace it with a new terminal that requires a 15-20 minute walk to get to any gate.
  - bradleyjg 5y ago
    Maybe it’s necessary to spread things out like that to get the planes in and out quickly. But that still doesn’t explain why they can’t do some kind of people mover.
dzhiurgis 5y ago
If you aren't lucky enough to fly to big enough city, your next best option for that 6AM flight from Stansted is 2-3 buses starting 2AM :|