Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmspring | Hacker News Reader

I don't mind a bit of work travel, but I am also picky about the routes I take. Anything in Europe, it is SFO to "somewhere in Europe, not Heathrow" and then from there. I've usually had status (Gold) but my wife and I also travel enough privately where taking advantage of a travel credit card that gives you status (and extra miles blahblah) helps.

I've not done a milage run, nor will I do multiple hops just to get a few hundred (or a thousand) extra miles. The only exception to that is if the alliance I prefer (Star Alliance) doesn't have as direct as say One World, I'll still take the Star Alliance route for the miles.

About the only airline I travel with more than UA/other star alliance partners is Alaska because I head up to the Pacific Northwest frequently.

View on HN

Why not Heathrow? I just flew there last month and it didn't seem particularly bad. Was I lucky?

I'm in Heathrow now, I can confirm... it's fine.

Your experience will depend very much on which Terminal you're at (there is a big difference in age and layouts of individual terminals) and, in particular, whether you're forced to switch terminals when transiting.

A good airport for transiting into Europe, and in my view usually more pleasant than London, Frankfurt or Paris, is Amsterdam Schiphol.

Agree on AMS. The construction there has been going on for a couple of years and it'll be nicer once that's done, but even with that, it's my preferred airport to connect in EU.

Not sure about GP but I avoid Heathrow because the UK requires me to have a transit visa just to fly through. Most other EU countries don't.

It's a large airport and when transiting to other parts of Europe, I've found it more painful than smaller airports. When I've had to go through customs there (US national) the lines have been incredibly slow and tedious.

In terms of time/distance, some hops at Frankfurt are just as bad or worse than Heathrow (US -> FRA -> Tel Aviv being a really really nice not walk).

Given a choice, I prefer Zurich or Munich first, Frankfurt second, and surprisingly my experience with CDG hasn't been bad compared to horror stories I have heard.

My ex and I went to Britain 20 years ago (honeymoon trip) Beforehand everyone warned us how bad going though customs was going to be. But we for some deranged reason flew into Glasgow. Got off the flight, walked down to the customs counter (singular) and the agent looked at our passports, smiled, stamped them and that was that. Reminded me of flying into John Wayne International before they wrecked it. The difference in cognitive load between John Wayne and LAX was night and day.

My last trip to London, single person at customs, about 40 people in line ahead of me, took almost an hour to get through. I've always found MUC/FRA/ZRH to be way more efficient.

Upcoming trip to Dublin, I opted for going via Frankfurt instead of Heathrow. Silly, yes, but experiences and preferences play into planning.

My wife is Australian, and when we arrived in London from Sydney, I'd pop through the e-gates with my biometric Shenghen passport, and then settle down in the cafe opposite arrivals, and took my time reading the paper and enjoying a (not so) fine English breakfast. Usually had time for a third of a book as well. Then she'd finally get out.

I never understood why LHR had to have such long immigration queues. The solution is pretty simple: add more officers. Those booths were never fully staffed. I suspect some kind of labour dispute is involved.

Best customs experience was flying into Reykjavik. Walk down empty hallway to customs agent, they flip open your passport, flip it closed, and hand it back.

Speaking of LHR, I was amused when I flew there 6 weeks after September 11 2001 (remember, air travel took quite a hit), on a BA 747, and they offloaded us with a stair car and a shuttle bus. I couldn't believe they couldn't even find enough terminals for their own national airline.

I fly yearly or more to many of these airports.

LHR is down to what you are flying. If you are flying BA, you land and take off in T5 and it will be quick and painless, leaving you time for a nice meal at Plane Food. In one instance, I turned left out of the aircraft, went through empty security (as the only transferring passenger) and had a quick chat with the immigration officer about whether Plane Food was open yet (no :( ), and literally 3 minutes after deplaning, I was next to my gate. Make that 20 minutes if you have to go back to A gates (or whatever the ones with the restaurants are). Last time I got bored and decided to walk between A and C gates, which was a fun if eery experience down an empty tunnel several km long; sort of beats the crowded gate train.

If you are flying not-BA, then, you're not LHR's priority and it might suck, especially with a terminal change. I haven't done this in years for precisely that reason, but I remember cramped terminals, impossibly complicated options to get between them, and generally bad service throughout. Somehow there are always works at LHR, just like with the tube in London, where you check not to see which lines are down but which are up today. Last Christmas, the inter-terminal transfers were done via a free shuttle bus that used the motorway...

I hear you on the FRA walks. But Lufthansa reliably flies A380s internationally, even if the food sucks. And that's a guaranteed quiet flight vs the 50% chance of a crummy old 747 on BA... still, it must be at least 1-2km! And this time you have no time for the much better food options, and a lot of people are walking with you.

ZRH is reliably halfway between those two - the big plane and small plane buildings are separated by a medium length walkway which is always the same. However food is so damn expensive!

I would fly AF if I could just for the better food (and free flow champagne, even if it's bottom shelf) and guaranteed A380 again. But every single of my CDG experiences has indeed been a horror story. The place is like a study on how to screw up an airport. In one case, the only airside toilet was blocked for cleaning, which wasn't ongoing because the cleaning lady felt like taking an extended break, reading her paper and insulting those like me enquiring about whether we could possibly use the toilet before immigration queues...

For Americans living in New York or Washington, I'd recommend having a look at GVA. It's a small, very efficient airport with a lot of connections all over Europe and the Middle East (including cheap ones as an EasyJet hub) and has decent lounges. I think both United and Delta fly direct from these cities. Plus, if your layover is long, you can always get out and take the (free) 6 minute train to the city.

I'm not sure why you are big on the 380. To me it is a long load/unload and (unless you are in one of the airlines that flies a nice F ... spending $10K+ on your seat) it is just like anything else inside. I'd take a 777 or better yet 787 any time. Even the newer LH 747-8 to India is better than the 380 hard product IMO.

What airport depends on what airline alliance you fly with though. I'm StarAlliance so not much CDG or AMS unless it is O/D.

For * A I personally love FRA, but I've been through it 40+ times and know it like the back of my hand. I don't mind the A-B-C pier walks really, and most of the time landing in B and going over to the Schengen gates at A is not that big of a deal. MUC is much nicer to navigate than FRA but the connectivity is not as good.

If you are sticking to * A the new terminal at LHR is not bad, but most of the good connectivity in on BA and taking a bus to T5 and re-clearing security is terrible.

Instead of GVA or ZRH, whose connectivity is pretty mediocre on Swiss, someone flying * A should really look at IST. The Turkish lounge is excellent and the connectivity to EMEA is far superior, and lots of NA airports have a direct connection.

All this just reminds me I have to fly to EWR tomorrow :(

I'm big specifically on the 787 and the A380 in this order (perhaps reversed if I can get on upper deck on the A380, which almost never happens) because of the noise levels, humidity and pressure, which are MUCH better than the 777 and 747 and earlier aircraft, even renovated.

Most airlines flying into SIN have old IFE on the older aircraft which means 1 in 2 seats has a massive metal box taking away half your foot space, and my knees and the sides of my legs really do not appreciate this. Next generation (e.g. new BA 773s) is a flat thin black box, or nothing visible. For some reason, a 3-4-3 777 is also a guaranteed trolley-shoulder bash every time they serve food, another good reason to avoid airlines that like to fly it (including SQ); my shoulder doesn't stick out as much from a newer aircraft seat but this could be psychological. Also, the A380 upper deck window seat has massive amounts of space on the window side which feels somewhat more private (you can practically stash your bag there).

One side effect of how quiet the 787 and A380 are is that you can hear babies from much further - perhaps 10 rows vs 2. So, it can be harder to sleep if you're seated too close to a baby cluster in Y.

I don't mind taking ages to deplane or board. It's a fraction of the flight anyway, and the actual walking is quick and the rest seated. I used to care about the crowd/volume when flying to SYD because SYD customs used to be highly inefficient, with LHR level of queues for foreigners. They made recent changes and now it's faster than for Australians using e-gates, so I'm not as bothered by a slow deplaning for that either.

I do mind less noise in my ears for the 22h of flying from Australia to Europe on 3 legs. I'll fly budget over SQ if the budget airline has a 787... sandwiches are cheaper than lost sleep!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com