10 ms·

Depends on where you are, but there are numerous attempts to reduce these things in Canada ,where I live, and the US has similar schemes. Check-in is now onlin

Depends on where you are, but there are numerous attempts to reduce these things in Canada ,where I live, and the US has similar schemes. Check-in is now online, bag drop is automated, security is a breeze with Verified Traveller or PreCheck, immigration and customs are simplified with NEXUS/Global Entry/APEC, and airline status can get you priority baggage. I am often in the airport lounge within 15 minutes of arriving at the airport, with that all completed. Same with immigration. Plenty of countries offer concierge immigration schemes if you pay between $50 and $300. > Couple of hours to get to the airport You have to be in a pretty sparse area for this to be the case, so a lot of this just comes down to living far from a city.

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
> You have to be in a pretty sparse area for this to be the case, Nope, unless you mean "You have to be in a pretty sparse area for it to be that low". From North London, you should plan on more than 90 minutes to get to Heathrow, regardless of which transport mode you choose. It's not because of sparseness or "far from a city" of the parts in-between, quite the opposite. Gatwick is worse. Stansted is slightly is better, but I'm seldom going somewhere that flies from Stansted.
- tomatocracy 3y ago
  If you really need to get there quicker, there are a few companies offering motorcycle taxi services (where they ride and you ride pillion), which can make a big difference at times of busy traffic (though it does limit the amount of luggage you can bring).
  - stephenr 3y ago
    Probably also increases the need for a change of underwear in the carry on bag you now can't take with you.
llm_trw 3y ago
The thing is that in the 90s it used to be 30 to 90 minutes for getting on board an international flight. Much like Concord we decided that slower is better for some reason.
- ghaff 3y ago
  90 minutes is probably still comfortable time for an international flight in the US if you have Pre-Check. I don't like rushing so I'd probably give it a bit more time but usually things go pretty fast. That said, I agree with the basic point that transatlantic tends to be an all-day thing (or a red-eye) and shaving some hours off the flight itself doesn't really change that. (And even if it made it easier to get to continental Europe on a daytime flight from eastern US, that matters less with modern lie-flat seating.)
logifail 3y ago
> immigration and customs are simplified If you're eligible, there are plenty of us who aren't. I waited well over two hours at JFK last month. > security is a breeze I never did work out why it's OK for aircraft to fly in to US airspace with non-PreCheck passengers who've not had to remove their shoes at security.
- adastra22 3y ago
  It’s not OK to just fly in. Coming to the US you have to go through the special US pre-clearance zone that has extra security. You may not have to take off your shoes, but you often don’t have to in the US either. Really depends on local screening requirements which are wildly inconsistent.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    That is not true in general. You pre-clear at certain airports but you typically just go through standard airport security.
    - adastra22 3y ago
      Yes, it depends on if the standard airport security meets US regulations for security. Many European and all Canadian airports do.
      - logifail 3y ago
        > Many European and all Canadian airports do Despite shoes not needing to be routinely removed at most (all?) European airports' security checkpoints?
        ghaff 3y ago
        That's the main discrepancy which the US basically overlooks for non-US security procedures. (Though there's some seemingly arbitrary variance in electronics screening as well.)
hef19898 3y ago
If I take two extreme, Munich Airport Terminal 3 and the small local airport nearby, we have: MUC: - 10-20 minutes from parking to baggage drop off, depending on where ypu park, can be almost 30 minutes for the parking you ise for vacation (and not the close by ones you can put in your travell expenses) - 10 minutes, if you are unlucky a lot more, from baggage drop off until you pass security - another 10-15 minutes to get fr security to your gate at Terminal 3 So, at the very least 30, in praxis more like 45 minutes, at the airport alone. And MUC is pretty well built and organized in that regard. The local airport so, which has no real commercial flihhts anymore, is at max. 15 minutes from parking to gate, all included.
bombcar 3y ago
"Travel time to the airport, door to door" is often much more than just "driving over there" though that can often be the fastest - drive to the airport, park on the closest ramp, walk in. If you park at the discount ramps, you're usually adding at least 15 minutes if not more. Transit adds significantly more for most people, unless you have a train to the gate right outside your door. > Most people live a reasonable distance from a decent-sized airport. Half the people in the United States live within 17 miles of a decent-sized airport, and ninety percent of the country lives within 58 miles (about an hours drive). Twenty-five percent of the population lives pretty darn close: less than 9 miles. From https://www.mark-pearson.com/airport-distances/ https://www.mark-pearson.com/airport-distances/ - he used any airport with more than 100k passengers a year, so it's not counting rinky-dinky commuter airports.
- ghaff 3y ago
  >ninety percent of the country lives within 58 miles (about an hours drive) An hour's drive :-) I'm closer than that to Logan in Boston and planning for 2 hours in the morning is not unreasonable at all. (And basically the car company I use won't let me plan for a lot less than that because they don't want to be on the hook if I miss my flight.)
  - bombcar 3y ago
    It's very interest the dynamics - the time and cost of almost all options available to me, end up being quite close. Easiest for me is "drive myself and park at the closest ramp" but that's the most expensive after a certain number of days.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Parking at Boston Logan is expensive even with Economy Parking (which I joke is in Canada); the airport is very close-in to the city. In my current job, no one has ever pushed back on me using a private car service and, if I'm traveling on my own, it's usually for long enough that the car service is at least breakeven relative to driving/parking. After a couple issues, e.g. arriving on a cold 10pm night to a flat tire I couldn't get off, I mostly just won't drive in any longer. There are a couple bus services from the burbs but I haven't really been motivated to check them out for years.
thaumasiotes 3y ago
> You have to be in a pretty sparse area for this to be the case, so a lot of this just comes down to living far from a city. Speaking from the center of Shanghai, it does indeed take a couple of hours to get to the airport by subway, though a taxi is more like one hour. Airports don't get sited in dense locations - they make a lot of noise - so I can't quite follow your logic. If you live in a city, it's going to take you a while to get to the airport.

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago

> You have to be in a pretty sparse area for this to be the case, Nope, unless you mean "You have to be in a pretty sparse area for it to be that low". From North London, you should plan on more than 90 minutes to get to Heathrow, regardless of which transport mode you choose. It's not because of sparseness or "far from a city" of the parts in-between, quite the opposite. Gatwick is worse. Stansted is slightly is better, but I'm seldom going somewhere that flies from Stansted.

tomatocracy 3y ago
If you really need to get there quicker, there are a few companies offering motorcycle taxi services (where they ride and you ride pillion), which can make a big difference at times of busy traffic (though it does limit the amount of luggage you can bring).
- stephenr 3y ago
  Probably also increases the need for a change of underwear in the carry on bag you now can't take with you.

llm_trw 3y ago

The thing is that in the 90s it used to be 30 to 90 minutes for getting on board an international flight. Much like Concord we decided that slower is better for some reason.

ghaff 3y ago
90 minutes is probably still comfortable time for an international flight in the US if you have Pre-Check. I don't like rushing so I'd probably give it a bit more time but usually things go pretty fast. That said, I agree with the basic point that transatlantic tends to be an all-day thing (or a red-eye) and shaving some hours off the flight itself doesn't really change that. (And even if it made it easier to get to continental Europe on a daytime flight from eastern US, that matters less with modern lie-flat seating.)

logifail 3y ago

> immigration and customs are simplified If you're eligible, there are plenty of us who aren't. I waited well over two hours at JFK last month. > security is a breeze I never did work out why it's OK for aircraft to fly in to US airspace with non-PreCheck passengers who've not had to remove their shoes at security.

adastra22 3y ago
It’s not OK to just fly in. Coming to the US you have to go through the special US pre-clearance zone that has extra security. You may not have to take off your shoes, but you often don’t have to in the US either. Really depends on local screening requirements which are wildly inconsistent.
- ghaff 3y ago
  That is not true in general. You pre-clear at certain airports but you typically just go through standard airport security.
  - adastra22 3y ago
    Yes, it depends on if the standard airport security meets US regulations for security. Many European and all Canadian airports do.
    - logifail 3y ago
      > Many European and all Canadian airports do Despite shoes not needing to be routinely removed at most (all?) European airports' security checkpoints?
      - ghaff 3y ago
        That's the main discrepancy which the US basically overlooks for non-US security procedures. (Though there's some seemingly arbitrary variance in electronics screening as well.)

hef19898 3y ago

If I take two extreme, Munich Airport Terminal 3 and the small local airport nearby, we have: MUC: - 10-20 minutes from parking to baggage drop off, depending on where ypu park, can be almost 30 minutes for the parking you ise for vacation (and not the close by ones you can put in your travell expenses) - 10 minutes, if you are unlucky a lot more, from baggage drop off until you pass security - another 10-15 minutes to get fr security to your gate at Terminal 3 So, at the very least 30, in praxis more like 45 minutes, at the airport alone. And MUC is pretty well built and organized in that regard. The local airport so, which has no real commercial flihhts anymore, is at max. 15 minutes from parking to gate, all included.

bombcar 3y ago

"Travel time to the airport, door to door" is often much more than just "driving over there" though that can often be the fastest - drive to the airport, park on the closest ramp, walk in. If you park at the discount ramps, you're usually adding at least 15 minutes if not more. Transit adds significantly more for most people, unless you have a train to the gate right outside your door. > Most people live a reasonable distance from a decent-sized airport. Half the people in the United States live within 17 miles of a decent-sized airport, and ninety percent of the country lives within 58 miles (about an hours drive). Twenty-five percent of the population lives pretty darn close: less than 9 miles. From https://www.mark-pearson.com/airport-distances/ https://www.mark-pearson.com/airport-distances/ - he used any airport with more than 100k passengers a year, so it's not counting rinky-dinky commuter airports.

ghaff 3y ago
>ninety percent of the country lives within 58 miles (about an hours drive) An hour's drive :-) I'm closer than that to Logan in Boston and planning for 2 hours in the morning is not unreasonable at all. (And basically the car company I use won't let me plan for a lot less than that because they don't want to be on the hook if I miss my flight.)
- bombcar 3y ago
  It's very interest the dynamics - the time and cost of almost all options available to me, end up being quite close. Easiest for me is "drive myself and park at the closest ramp" but that's the most expensive after a certain number of days.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Parking at Boston Logan is expensive even with Economy Parking (which I joke is in Canada); the airport is very close-in to the city. In my current job, no one has ever pushed back on me using a private car service and, if I'm traveling on my own, it's usually for long enough that the car service is at least breakeven relative to driving/parking. After a couple issues, e.g. arriving on a cold 10pm night to a flat tire I couldn't get off, I mostly just won't drive in any longer. There are a couple bus services from the burbs but I haven't really been motivated to check them out for years.

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> You have to be in a pretty sparse area for this to be the case, so a lot of this just comes down to living far from a city. Speaking from the center of Shanghai, it does indeed take a couple of hours to get to the airport by subway, though a taxi is more like one hour. Airports don't get sited in dense locations - they make a lot of noise - so I can't quite follow your logic. If you live in a city, it's going to take you a while to get to the airport.