$28.50 Beer at LaGuardia Sparks Audit of New York Airport Concession Prices | Hacker News Reader

$28.50 Beer at LaGuardia Sparks Audit of New York Airport Concession Prices

eyeoftheflyer.com

203 pointslxm238 comments

I forget the name of the company, but many of the concessions at terminals in US airports are basically monopolies controlled by one company. They go a long way in obfuscating it through iPads, authentic-sounding fronts (ie: the Biergarten in this example), and partnerships with celebrity chefs like Wolfgang Puck who are willing to whore their name. But in the end everything goes back to a common commissary kitchen, where they serve up cafeteria food.

It's ridiculous, and part of the reason why almost all US airports are awful, Kafka-esque centers of frustration and disappointment.

Edit: The company is OTG. They're basically what Aramark is to sporting arenas, except to airports. Get a monopoly for the captives, drive up prices, and serve up garbage.

Most likely HMS Host. All your airport receipts will say that, once you start looking.

HMS host doesn’t do the upscale appearance and iPad thing. They tend to stick to low end franchise operations and news stands.

You’re probably thinking of OTG, the offender in the article linked.

I disagree with your assessment of their quality. As someone that used to spend a majority of the year traveling in the pre-COVID world, OTG takeovers have only improved the quality of food and drinks that are available in the airports they have won contracts in. Yes, they have some establishments that aren’t great, but I still prefer their attempt to be somewhat more appealing than Subway/Burger King/Dunkin Donuts/whatever other garbage tier food option used to be in the same spot OTG took over.

Their prices are stupidly expensive, but for business travelers with expense accounts…it doesn’t matter.

Not sure why this is being downvoted. As a guy that travels 200k miles a year you have hit the nail on the head.

I don't think you're travelling. At 200k miles a year, your home is the airplane. Whatever you do outside of that is your travel.

I see that you disagree. As someone who's done 100k miles in a year, at 200k miles you're basically travelling every other day. 100k miles is hard on your body.

I did some quick math and that’s about 36 weeks of round trip NY to LA. Is that really so hard to believe? My understanding is that there are jobs that are essential all travel (call it 48 weeks a year).

You're basically just getting over the jet-lag when you have to leave again. It's not hard to believe, it's just very hard on your body. I've done a trip that was West Coast to South Korea for 5 days, then to South Africa for 6 days, then New York for 3 days, and back to the West Coast. Took 2 weeks to feel right again, and I was in my 20s.

That is roughly 550 miles per day, every day, 365 days a year. That is a lot, did you mean 20k miles? What kind of work do you do?

(Not the parent, but) 200K miles/year is roughly a monthly New York to Shenzhen round trip.

United frequent flyer status doesn't start til 25k/year, and top tier is over 100k/year. I don't think it's a typo for 20k.

I hit 50k/year just going back and forth between SFO and YYZ once a month. I'm just a software engineer, with a lot of collaboration between our SF and Waterloo offices.

I'd think of it more like 4000 miles a week, which is roughly a weekly roundtrip cross-country (US) flight. I wouldn't do it, but some people do, and it doesn't seem absurd enough to assume a typo. 20k miles is a quarterly cross-country trip, plus an extra one, which is barely anything if you're considered traveling a lot.

Regular transoceanic air travel, like on the order of once a month, can hit that number.

200k miles a year is very easy to hit for US folks working in the consulting sector, especially if you end up serving clients on the opposite coast. It’s also normal for consultants to rack up unholy amounts of frequent flier points and take lots of nearly-free long haul trips each year.

Source: am consultant. Have hit 200k miles/yr multiple times.

A friend works in sf and runs an eng team out of seattle. He daytrips up there weekly, or at least did pre-covid.

800 miles SFO to SEA, 45 weeks... That's 72k miles alone.

The CO2 footprint of people like that is insane.

Assuming he is flying in economy every time, that individual personally generates 13.84 metric tons of CO2 pollution every year.[0] More than 3 passenger cars' worth.[1] The average yearly carbon footprint for one person in the US is about 16 tons, so he is essentially doubling that just by flying.[2]

Here's hoping that engineering team and others like it are doing something very valuable to the world at large, because it's costing all of us. This example highlights the cost we all pay when companies and teams refuse to adopt remote work for these kinds of cases. I wonder, after a year long remote work experiment will that team go back to requiring a weekly roundtrip flight, or will they change their practices?

[0]https://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx?tab=3 [1]https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-t... [2]https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon...

You can take that a step further: it’s actually 22 miles an hour, 24 hours a day. Which when you put it like that feels quite leisurely. You could do that on a boat.

On the other hand when you think of it as spending so much of your life flying that your average speed over a whole year is 22 miles an hour…

It's not that extreme. A colleague flew return between CA and Switzerland every two weeks (13 hrs direct each way). That is ~250,000 miles per year or about 5,000 per week.

I also fly 200k a year (pre-Covid). But it's usually a long-haul trip once or twice every week with a mix of shorter hops; not a 3h flight every day.

Mix of an active travel lifestyle, living in hotels full time, and a lot of work meetings, events, and commitments around the world.

You got downvoted, but I generally agree that it is garbage for the amount that you pay, but remove the price and airport food isn't bad at the ~$30 range.

That's the point though right? OTG prices at the highest point they can, which is likely 50%-65% of a per-diem @ $75/day.

As a non-business traveler though, it's a nightmare for the monopoly, but I'm agreeing w/ the quality part.

Airline food, now that's terrible, even in Premium Economy.

ANA and Thai Airways would claim otherwise.

Singapore Airlines also has mostly edible food.

Thai’s more so like their American peers: decent food on long haul, but in flight food on ‘local’ Asian flights (even longer ones) is abysmal, even in business class.

I would beg to disagree. I've had some really good meals in the pointy end of the plane on Asian flights (JAL, Asiana and Singapore Airlines come to mind), and even in short-haul economy class the stuff eg. Thai dishes out is head and shoulders above the slop you get on (say) trans-Pacific United. I'm the opposite of a picky eater, but I still recall with the horror an attempt at pancake and eggs I was served once for breakfast, only both had long since disintegrated and the dish was covered from end to end in congealed off-white goo that was trying to approximate gravy -- the only time I was physically unable to eat an airplane meal.

Your last line rubs me the wrong way. Prices always matter, especially in business.

Of course it matters. Just not to me, in this case.

My company picking up the tab for my insanely overpriced airport food, hotel bar drinks, and other semi-ridiculous daily purchases is one of the prices they pay to keep me around and living out of a suitcase (during more normal, non-COVID times).

But Shake Shack!

Have a family, we travel. My expense account is my wallet.

If they're so proud of it why do they hide it behind a plethora of different brands? And really, how competent do you have to be to produce normally edible food if you're charging $28 for a beer?

> If they're so proud of it why do they hide it behind a plethora of different brands

Multi-brand strategies are common. Using that as proof that they aren't "proud" and they "hide" is a leap that requires more than just a statement.

Multi brand strategies are specifically made to trick consumers into thinking a product is diverse. They are a really big problem in the US and harm fair competition because it makes markets look more saturated than they are.

That’s only partially accurate (you’re right that it makes markets look more saturated than they are.) A lot of the time it occurs just from simple acquisitions. For instance, InBev has acquired quite a few beer brands, but they don’t consolidate because a lot perform very strongly in their home market, and consolidating them all under a single brand would create far too many skus for any customer to understand, and create confusion.

Yeah, beer producers are the king of collecting brands and forcing them onto shelf space with their other products. Its entire goal is to push out the small competition. Doesn’t matter the quality of your products if it’s the only ones available.

They don’t hide it at all. Their branding is all over everything they run, the iPads they scatter around the terminals, and their grab and go food stores & news stands are literally named OTG/On the Go.

The illusion of choice.

It's real choice. Even if they're all owned by the same company, the burrito place still offers burritos, the burger place still offers burgers, the pizza place still offers pizza, etc.

Offering everything at all the locations would be terrible, because you just can't cram that much into one tiny airport concession kitchen. And offering the same limited menu at all locations would also be terrible, because different people like to eat different things.

Ah, but you're assuming that the choice that matters to the consumer is "what do I want to eat?" as opposed to "how many companies operate concessions in my local airport?"

and they all serve $28 beer

I'm sure companies like OTG are responsible for a large part of that $28. But, I would like to see what the airport charges them for rent. And if that was adjusted at all during the travel lull of COVID. I suspect a fair amount of the problem is the airports charging outrageous rents (and/or other fees).

HMS is worse than OTG. I would avoid HMS as much as possible due to consistent poor quality. I also don't care about cost due to expense account, except when traveling for pleasure.

once I got terrible service at an airport Starbucks. I used the URL on the receipt to report my negative experience to HMS, AND ALSO reported it on the Starbucks website. I received a $10 Starbucks gift card from HMS (more than amount of my purchase) and a $20 gift card from Starbucks.

Awful service but at least I feel like I got my money’s worth. Interesting that Starbucks corporate was more generous than HMS. They were both very responsive, fwiw

And for the majority of travelers who are not expense accounted?

The problem is that even pre-COVID, business travelers only accounted for somewhere around 30% of air travelers. Post-COVID, that number is far lower. So stupidly high prices that are affordable to business travelers with expense accounts are not even remotely affordable for the vast majority of travelers.

Sometimes those per diems are flat rate & direct paid, so whatever you don’t spend, you get to pocket yourself.

And if limited per day, spending less at the airport can mean spending more elsewhere.

(Non-USian) Does the IRS treat these expenses as taxable benefits? Even Paying 30% tax eats into a $27 meh meal vs packing your own.

Per diem reimbursements are not taxable income, neither are direct reimbursements for business expenses (including michelin-starred dinners).

Not always true (in the US). Per diem and other travel expenses are not taxable for up to 1 year spent traveling away from the employee’s home, though that ‘year’ doesn’t necessarily have to be consecutive time spent away, and there are a variety of complications that influence when the taxation would kick in (e.g. when was the project known to be over 12 months in duration? When does the employee spend over 50% of their time in a location other than ‘home’ for business purposes? and many other nuances).

The joys of the US tax code -_-

Business travelers, whatever their head share may be, still responsible for 90% of spending in airports. Either market or Soviet cafeteria, you know

If I'm not flying for business, I'm intentionally not spending money in the airport as much as possible. I'd rather time my travels to get a decent meal for a good price before I get to the airport.

We used to do actuals for business trip expenses. It was very obnoxious having to justify every dollar you spent and needing the receipts to back them up. Forget to grab a receipt for a gas station coffee and sandwich and the admin assistant just assumes you were buying cigarettes and a 40oz. Whatever money the company was saving on paying actual expenses, I'm sure they were paying more for approving complicated expense reports. Now, we get per diem and there's no annoying oversight into how you spend your money and what on.

Worked for a gov environment that required receipts for everything. Take public transit and you better search out a paper chit for the $3, but drive your car and they’ll accept any mileage at 50c/km.

Was more about checking boxes than anything else.

Was funny when you have a dinner with 7 people and end up with 14 receipts because we can’t expense alcohol.

> I still prefer their attempt to be somewhat more appealing than Subway/Burger King/Dunkin Donuts/whatever other garbage tier food option used to be in the same spot

In my experience Subway has a 100% hit rate of being better than a $26 airport hash brown, egg and bacon muffin, and small coffee.

As someone who has been to Britain airport (and hopes not to return), I am offended. Best sandwich I've ever eaten.

I don’t understand what you are saying, does Britain have the best or worst sandwich?

Which Britain airport?

I think they're saying that the best sandwich they ever had was in an airport in Britain that was not managed by a company like the one described earlier in the thread.

EDIT: after rereading GP's comment, I think they're saying that the airport _was_ managed by such a company, and they loved the food from it (as opposed to Subway etc.)

I recall some very decent by airport standards Japanese inspired food in Singapore's airport.

Fast food chains are normally the way to go for minimizing the downside risk though.

Singapore's airport is ridiculous (I mean that in a good way). They have a movie theater. They have a swimming pool with pool side bar. A ton of other random a attractions

https://www.changiairport.com/en/discover/attractions.html#/...

And good food choices, over 150 of them.

https://www.changiairport.com/en/dine/dining-directory.html#...

True, but is that tuna sandwich really tuna?

If it tastes good I couldn't care less what it's made of.

> but I still prefer their attempt to be somewhat more appealing than Subway/Burger King/Dunkin Donuts/whatever other garbage tier food option used to be in the same spot OTG took over.

Don't the also operate franchises like those, too? It's been a long time since I've flown, but I think my local airport has well-known franchises, "local" restaurants, and probably some generic ones, all operated by the same company (which is clear from the receipts).

I might disagree with the notion that Subway/Burger King/Dunkin Donuts is garbage tier. Obviously it isn't the healthiest food, but the minimum quality standards mean something for those big brands. At least consumers can be confident that what comes out of their local Subway/Burger King/Dunkin Donuts will also come out of the same in an airport.

They've also got a captive audience, almost none of whom are going to go out of the airport to go to a competitor because they'd have to suffer through the traffic, parking, and security lines to get back in.

It's a similar thing with ski resorts, skating rinks, bowling alleys, etc.. all of whom tend to charge exorbitant prices for mediocre food, or worse.

The only airport I've been to in the US that doesn't appear entirely beholden to this dynamic, or one very similar to it, is PDX. Portland International seems to have several eateries and establishments which are representative of some of the more popular local "name brand" establishments, e.g. Stumptown, Country Cat, Kenny & Zukes, etc. As a result, it's one of the only airports I don't dread eating at when I'm coming & going.

Off the top of my head SFO and MSP also have locally themed establishments, but ran by a single concessionaire.

Austin's airport does this as well, a lot of local joints. And the Southern Terminal even has a food truck.

MSP (Minneapolis) does this too. Local brands have spots.

The folks running the airport actually manage selecting the establishments to make sure there is a variety of price points, types of places, and etc.

Run by the company this article is about, using local brands as clothing.

https://www.otgexp.com/experiences/featured-experience?loc=2...

I wonder why the difference. Prices at MSP are certainly marked 'up' but nothing like the story.

I wonder what 'run by' really entails.

(I live in the Twin Cities, so MSP is my airport.) The linked article only mentions Concourse G. Most of the local-style restaurants I can think of off the top of my head (e.g. Surdyk's, Angel Food) are in the main hall or Concourse C area. So I guess OTG probably does some of that, but does not own all of the "local" restaurants in the airport. In fact, the presence of the other local restaurants may have encouraged OTG to contract with local restaurants to fit in and seem more local. Just spitballing.

SEA is the US airport I've been through most frequently, and I don't recall it being dreadful for food. Largely fast food style stuff, but there were multiple different options. Note - this is the international terminal, the domestic one could well be awful.

SEA came to mind for me as well. The domestic terminal offers local options such as Beecher’s, Caffe Ladro, Grand Central Bakery, Salt & Straw, Skillet, and Starbucks.

Is it true they no longer have an Ivar’s?

Yeah: https://mynorthwest.com/900612/ivars-leaving-seatac-airport

Ivars lost their lease and left in 2018. Anthony’s seafood is also gone.

I think there might be an Ivars kiosk.

These are often operated by companies like HMS or OTG and simply license the brand from local businesses. In my opinion they rarely recreate the experience of the real establishment.

I know it's technically accurate, but the description of Starbucks as a "local option" is extremely amusing.

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Skillet in terminal N is operated by HMS. I know because I gave feedback and they respond.

Side note: the amazing Salt and Straw is from Portland.

Salt & Straw is a Portland company AFAIK.

MSY really focused on displaying local food offerings when it opened the new terminal (2019)

It also did prior to the new terminal, but the old terminal was built so long ago that it was setup without security in mind. All the good restaurants were outside of security.

A lot of the same restaurants are in the new terminal, but they're now past security.

Phoenix airport is this way as well. Some of the restaurants that locals are proud of have locations in the airport. It's pretty cool!

That's not an accident.

> Our promise to “street pricing” means things cost the same here as in town.

https://www.portofportland.com/about/pdx

Tampa's airport is basically entirely local options after a revamp a few years ago.

Yes, one of the things PDX does so well! At other airports I pretty much only go to McDonald's because its prices are typically the only ones that aren't crazy. At PDX though you can get fine, local food for a fair price

My favorite US airport for food outlets is Austin. Nothing beats getting Salt Lick before your flight!

Noticed the same thing on the local Helsinki Airport. Most of the restaurants are actually operated by either HMShost[1] or SSP[2]. Seems to be part of the business model that they partner with global and local brands.

[1] https://www.foodtravelexperts.com/international/ [2] https://hmshost.international/

After being stuck in LHR for 40 hours due to alleged equipment isses, my layover in HEL was a huge breath of fresh air. Tons of personality for an airport. Made me want to go back and visit Finland sometime.

OTG is much, much smaller than HMS Host. If they appear to be in all airports, it's probably just because you happen to go the airports where they operate. A list is on their site: https://www.otgexp.com Once you're out of the East Coast, you will not encounter OTG.

My life changed so much for the better once I got lounge access.

Unlimited free food and beverages (restaurant quality at The Centurion), free WiFi to do some work, and a clean relaxing space to decompress a bit or even shower before a flight.

Will never pay $18 for a mediocre airport sandwich again.

I’m very much looking forward to the Centurion Lounge ending their ‘2 free guests’ admission policy next year. They’re fantastic lounges when they aren’t horrifically overcrowded and have screaming kids running around, which seemed to increasingly be the norm up until COVID hit.

By 2018 or so, I often began avoiding the Centurion in favor of Delta lounges just to have some space to myself.

Lol, we have a saying where I work:

The only thing better than executive platinum status is not having to get on another f#cking airplane.

Yea the current Amex Platinum annual fee is insane but the lounge access you get on that card is pretty amazing. It really is worth it if you travel a lot.

$700/year for a metal coupon book is starting to push it, and the Centurion lounges are nice but not that nice.

Yeah, the current fee ($695) is a bit eye popping.

But I am actually using every penny of the airline, Uber and Equinox credits ($200 + $200 + $300) so it’s effectively free for me and all the extra benefits like lounge access are icing on the cake.

Airline club lounges are a racket of their own. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Haha, it's been a long time since I've found a Centurion lounge relaxing.

Lounge access is only good when it's not full of people who just pay for a credit card. I'm quite fond of the Cathay, Swiss, and Lufthansa first class lounges. Centurions have gone completely down-hill since the Platinum got popular.

Wow — before I finished reading your post, I said to myself, "it must be Aramark". I am surprised it is a different company, but not surprised that it's similar.

Does anyone know of an article on how/why this happens?

The airport is the most interesting situation because it's the most unavoidable monopoly.

If you have really bad food, it might be bad enough that I decide it's not worth going to the stadium - this is theoretically bad for the stadium.

I doubt many people are going to not fly because the food in the airport sucks. They'll just pack snacks. The airport doesn't really care.

The question is why was a single company granted the contract for all food in a given airport? Why not have multiple providers? A monopoly like this smells like corruption to me.

Why not have multiple providers?

Why would the airport want to deal with a dozen small providers, a third of which will no doubt drop out on any given year? Far easier to hand it off to one provider, let them deal with everything, and focus their energy on more important parts of their business.

Also in many places one company will own or operate several airports. I'd assume having the same company provide restaurant services across all their airports just makes life easier.

"almost all US airports are awful, Kafka-esque centers of frustration and disappointment."

Haven't been to the US, but the same applies to most European airports. Silly shops, silly layouts,etc. Heck, a few weeks ago I departed from a midsize airport that recently benefitted from billions of investment. Rest assure the money didn't go to make the whole process a bit easier for passengers and we all still had to stand in a crowded corridor and then on the stairs with no aircon except a big fan hanging off the ceiling.

Airports in the EU and Asia all force you to walk through vast duty free sections before you get to cramped sitting areas all crammed together.

Apparently, the Chief Strategy Officer of OTG is Larry Schwartz, a Cuomo staffer[1]. The fact that the prices are illegally high (apparently airport concessions may charge no more than 10% higher than "street" pricing for things) combined with the fact that operations are headed by someone close to the institution responsible for enforcing this sort of regulation smells a lot like a racket.

[1]:https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/142235397825221836...

With the extra requirements necessitated by being behind the security checkpoints, I don’t think it would be possible to only have a 10% premium. If this were enforced, I think we would end up with no airport food that was remotely edible.

Life (and capitalism) finds a way. A 55" tv is now a few hundred bucks when a few years back a lower res one half the size was $20k.

I don't think $30 beers is a necessity that follows from "someone has to push a case of beers through an x-ray machine".

All y’all on the thread depth are grossly underestimating the compliance costs these companies go through.

If you think it’s pushing a case of beer through a scanner, you sound like the hated “idea/business person” who thinks writing code is easy and can be an afterthought.

In any field where I don’t have experience, I try to remind myself that most of the iceberg is under the water.

Maybe. Or maybe they have a monopoly, so they're doing what monopolistic providers throughout history have always done: Increase prices as much as the market will bear and profit.

Healthy competition is necessary for unregulated capitalism to function effectively. When that fails, we shouldn't be surprised to see $400 insulin. Or, in this case, $28.50 beers.

I think we are in complete agreement that the details matter, and those of us discussing this are doing so without enough information to be considered well informed.

I've been into the restricted areas of an airport - there's actually less security than for a normal passenger going to a gate.

Isn't that because the people in that area are pre-screened? There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that would not be obvious to a visitor, including the security infra to get to that place.

The food providers don’t pay for the checkpoints.

Just because they don’t pay for the checkpoints doesn’t mean the checkpoints don’t incur a cost on the food

It's cost effective. There is separation of duty and the food is scanned just like luggage.

where does this "no more than 10% from street pricing" come from? i've seen no airport that charges less than +50% for alcohol.

I don’t think the food or drinks at the Manufactory Food Hall in SFO [1] have that high of a premium. They’re starting from a high base, but I don’t recall it being “the usual” +50%.

[1] https://sf.eater.com/2019/1/22/18193239/manufactory-food-hal...

Someone has to provide the service, and if private sector is not interested Cuomo will find a friend/cousin/sister willing to run it, like $3000/month homeless shelters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WGjCeFyr1g

I would say: then don't buy it, don't feed the mania.

But you're a captive audience: flights have no food (or charge a fortune); security won't let you bring food through; and if you only have 20 minutes between long flights, you're basically S-O-L and must pay the prices.

I understand travel isn't a right, and air travel reaaaaaly sucks right now, but it's more than just supply/demand. The "Passenger's Bill of Rights" should extend to "thou shalt not extort a captive audience that you made captive."

Or we all just stop flying and reset the system? I have no idea.

EDIT: Apparently you can bring food through security. I haven't tried again since I was denied a while back, didn't want to waste it. Thanks 'astura' for the link: https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/...

Huh? There's no reason you can't bring your own food through security as long as it's not liquid.

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/...

Not sure why this is downvoted since it's 100% correct. I always bring food through security, sometimes it gets flagged going through the xray machine but all that happens is TSA has to manually look through your bag. Normally as soon as they see it's food they just let you go, I think it's pretty common.

Yes. I think pretty much anyone that has flown with young children could backup that you can bring food through. We bring all sorts of snacks for the kids. Fresh fruit, crackers, cheese, etc.

La Guardia was renovated/built with taxpayer/public money... and these guys are holding a captive audience which doesn't have much choice. At some point we should require some kind of decency, where the vendor can make some profits, yet it doesn't turn into a total shakedown.

NYC is full of these shady hustler/operator types, trying shake down or make a buck in a place that there is a 'new fool' coming in every day. I have experienced it myself even in harmless things like soccer leagues. People trying to squeeze as much profit as they can.

I've brought food on many flights, most recently one from EWR just two weeks ago (a sandwich).

I can't believe this is controversial. Go to any airport. You'll see dozens of people eating sandwiches from Ziplock bags. Do they look like they're from Wolfgang Puck?

I’ve brought food through multiple times. They probably won’t let you bring in a cup of yoghurt or a can of sardines, but anything that isn’t liquid should be fine.

Sardines will definitely get through security, at least at SJC where I usually travel from. More times than not I get pulled aside for inspection though.

I've had a can of tuna confiscated. The letter of the rule is that you can't have liquids (including, apparently, a few drops of tuna brine/oil) in a container over 100 ml, regardless of how much liquid there is in the container.

You could make most of these issues go away by eliminating the TSA, but its union is so powerful now that we're probably never going to get rid of it. TSA employees are basically their own political welfare class.

> security won't let you bring food through

I can count the number of times I've bought food in airports on one hand. You absolutely can bring food through. I've been asked to throw out peanut butter once though.

>been asked to throw out peanut butter

Because it could be used as a bio weapon?

Anything viscous (paste, etc) counts as a liquid. I've had them give me shit about mashed potatoes in LAS, and nutella in TXL. But solid foods are totally fine.

I'm apparently the weirdo, since -- in pre-Covid times, to be clear -- I liked explicitly scheduling longer layovers, ideally 90+ minutes, so I could look around and find a place for a sit-down meal. Almost any larger airport I've been through, and even some of the smaller ones, had at least a few restaurants which were spinoffs of local restaurants in that area, with their own unique menus, kitchens specific to the restaurant, and sometimes surprisingly good food. I actually looked forward to traveling sometimes.

In general, I've found that the fast food places in airport "food courts" are the worst food experiences you get in American airports: the prices tend to be seriously jacked up and the menu options are more limited. This isn't to say that the sit-down places are bargains, but they're usually not so much more expensive than quick service that it isn't worth the price (to me) for the better food and more relaxed atmosphere.

I have, for the record, never seen a $28.50 beer at an airport. I'm pretty sure I've seen $12+ beers. You can blame that on the concession operators, but you can also blame it on the airport authority that lets them do that; there are some counties that control how much, if at all, airport outposts of chains can raise prices compared to their non-airport locations in the same county.

In indis at least, there is this "airports authority of india" which leases shops to well retailers and stuff. What they do is, they set a monthly rent and that has to be paid. So last 2 years there hasnt been any air travel but guess what, AAI demands their rent. As a result, I have seen 60+ year old shops fold because they cannot pay the rent when there is no income. Either that or they have to Jack up the prices to make up for the rent paid for the time no one was flying causing high prices.

> I liked explicitly scheduling longer layovers, ideally 90+ minutes, so I could look around and find a place for a sit-down meal

I usually do the same and there's some great stuff available in places like HKG or SIN.

It's a bad idea in a place like ZHR where a simple burger cost nearly 30CHF...

Beef is expensive in Switzerland :=) There is a Confiserie Sprüngli in that airport, and that's where I always pick up a sandwich. It's as good as the ones in town.

And prices are the same.

As they generally are in ZRH airport shops.

Sprüngli has also rather good salads, btw.

That's the normal price of a burger in Zurich though, nothing to do with airports.

That's a good point, but I think people doing layovers might not take that into account.

e.g. you might be flying from cheap place to cheap place like Poland to Thailand with a layover in Zurich and think "if I have a long layover in Zurch, I could grab some lunch."

Or maybe it was just me, forgetting how ridiculously expensive Switzerland is :(

That's simply the cost of flying around the planet in an almost spaceship.

About a month ago I had gone to the airport and realized I had completely forgot my headphones. I had limited money on me at the time so I figured I could pick up some cheap ass pair for the flight. Sure prices are inflated but maybe I could get something for $10.

Nope, rows of the mostly painful knockoffs of actual brands for $25-$50 dollars. The type of stuff you’d expect to see in r/crappyoffbrands. The only pairs they had that I’d consider paying for were ones which had the headphone jack, which ofc my phone doesn’t support and the adapter was being sold at something like 100%-200% more than somewhere like Target or BestBuy.

I’d often wondered who the hell uses the Best Buy vending machines you often see at US airports.

Then I found myself in the same situation as you in an airport news stand. I think I spent a minute looking at the awful selection of headphones and earbuds before I decided to walk way out of my way to the Best Buy machine.

Are devices pre-charged? That must do a number on the battery lifespan if so

Apple ships macs with like 80% charge

I once had to buy a macbook in ATL because mine suffered a charge failure. I copied what data I needed over with the remaining battery life and continued my trip. I couldn't return it after without flying to ATL.

I wonder if this will be the final fate of Bestbuy retail.

A small company, running vending machines in airports, and maybe small towns.

I did this at the Las Vegas McCarran airport once in 2016 when my headphones broke and I really didn't fancy doing the flight all the way back to London using the terrible earphones they hand out in-flight.

Surprisingly got a GREAT deal on a pair of mid-range Sony over-ear headphones for a bit cheaper than what I could see on London in-store prices or even on Amazon :-O I suspect because of some inventory clearance deal? Literally every other SKU in the vending machine was terribly overpriced though, so I was quite happy at this stroke of luck.

I'm still using the headphones to this day, so that was shockingly good value for airport vending machine clearance tat!

Edit: looked it up and I paid $50 for this, which is/was comparable to it's Amazon price at the time -- so not cheaper, but not ridiculously overpriced either.

You can usually buy them on planes too, for like $5. They are truly truly horrible, but cheap.

There was a better article about this on The City: https://www.thecity.nyc/2021/8/1/22604814/nyc-airport-high-p...

That article is the source of the reporting in the main article here, which doesn’t really add much (except more invasive ads). Maybe @dang could replace the linked article with that one?

I particularly like how they have this written at the bottom of this article about price-gouging:

> Which Credit Card is the Best for Those Expensive Airport Beers?! Our credit card partner, C*****s, can direct you to the best cards for your goals, financial situation, and credit score. Answer a couple of simple questions below — then see what they recommend for YOU!

Ahh... LaGuardia. Last time I flew out of there they had porta potty for toilets. It might have been one of the worst airports I have been at.

Some airports are just terrible and it doesn't make any sense with the traffic they receive why they don't just spend the money. Ohare has semi permanent buckets to catch leaks from that notorious roof. We welcome people into the U.S. at these airports and that's the first thing they see off the plane, the ceiling pissing water in Ohare even on a sunny day.

Terminal 5 (International arrivals) doesn't have the leaking Helmut Jahn ceilings like T1, but it also has absolutely zero amenities between the gates and customs.

And, when you do exit, there is a single shitty McDonald's with no room to sit down and eat. There might be a Starbucks too now.

It's pretty pathetic.

Why would the airport CEO spend money to fix O'Hare that could go to his bonus? What are you going to do about it? To transition to a new airport entirely (like Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson did to O'Hare) will take long enough for it to be the next CEO's bonus that will be affected.

US airports do not operate at the whims of the CEO. Most infrastructure investments are either championed by the airlines or by whatever government entity oversees the airport authority.

The last time I was in Philadelphia (2007ish) it looked like a scene from The 5th Element with a wall of luggage.

I worked out at Muir Woods National Monument while recovering from a nervous breakdown during college.

I was a cashier.

I didn't like the place, but my coworkers were unbelievable.

The federal government had the no so brilliant idea of farming out the concessions, and gift shop to the highest bidder. (I don't know exactly how the hiring process goes.)

The federal government basically said, our workers couldn't run a simple business, so let's let a private entity run it, and we will take our cut?

The gift shop sold millions per year.

The business agreement was around 10% of the gift shop sales would go back to the government.

To me that seemed like a good deal. What the corporation Aramark) did was load the place up with hand made items (Burl bowls, etc) in order to get around paying the 10%.

They also paid minimum wage, treated everyone including the managers terribly. The manager was required to be their 6 days a week. He was given the illustrious "Manager" fixed wage. Meaning he/she made less than minimum wage.

The food deal was 14% I believe, which was fair.

So when government wants to pay a low wage, and no benefits, they like to farm out their dirty work.

Looking back--I'm not sure the rangers could run the concessions, or at least the group of rangers I saw out there? I have never seen so many federal employees doing absoulty nothing. I also witnessed maintance workers tossing perfectly good chainsaw, tools into the dumptster. Tye reason being if they were "broken", they could procure more money. And yes--after closing I took those "broken" tools out of the trash, even after being told not to.

The rangers used to get all hyped up if they found a grow site. They would take pictures and slap behinds. What was ironic, is the evidence shed was always broken into?

Oh yea, at the time I felt all federal rangers shouldn't be armed. There was zero crime. Now--because we gas a few mountian lions, I guess they should be packing?

To my co-workers, I miss you guys so much. I hated the job, but loved you people.

(The park used to be free. Now they charge $10. This us our land people. Why are Americans being charged to get into any park, especially a National Monument? It would be very easy to let Americans in for free. They all come through one entrance. You can hike into the park though.)

> why can’t they let Americans in for free?

Population growth. The entry fee serves as a load-balancer to dissuade families who don’t have a specific desire to visit to go there just because it’s not too far away and free. Ok, it’s not just population growth—it’s also that the Internet has made it trivial to discover nearby free attractions, which leads to physical DoS attacks.

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/04/03/the-locust-economy/

Cant wait for a YC startup to build a marketplace matching travelers with extra snacks to hungry folks at the same airport! Hmm or maybe its "just add water" beer you can get through security. What reaction will make ethanol? ;)

Mashed potato flakes, water and any ready available fungus.

You don't remember the "Palcahol" debacle?

https://www.al.com/opinion/2015/06/powdered_alcohol_what_it_...

Just before COVID hit, there was an interesting thing going on in BLR Airport. You could order a meal (on Swiggy) from a restaurant near the airport and get it delivered to a gate number. No beverages, due to the security gates it had to pass through, but you had a refreshingly wide variety of options at reasonable prices.

And yet the Weihenstephaner, which actually tastes good, goes for almost $10 less.

That's still about a 500% markup. Outrageous by any standard.

500% on beer isn’t that bad. Your typical bar, without the need for any airport security stuff, is probably 3x at least.

Actually tastes good is a severe understatement

After 981 years, I'm not surprised that they know a thing or two about brewing.

I know why but it kills me that airports around the world don't just let "normal restaurants" come in and do their thing. Like mentioned in comments, even known stuff is basically run by a mega-franchisee so you don't even get the good stuff for the most part.

I get that some airports, there are logistics issues and whatnot. But the airport premiums for food that is just so messy is super frustrating.

I like how Narita at least has a bunch of restaurants before security that are not nearly as awful as what is behind the gates, but come on...

"I know why"

What's the "why"? Airports are infrastructure and shouldn't be corporations that maximize profits at all costs. As the airport operator it should be pretty easy to create a well-functioning market. Just avoid given to many businesses inside the airport to the same operator and make sure they compete to the death.

The reason is because airport operators, quite simply, don't care. There is a company that shows up and says "we can provide restaurants for everything in your airport". You check off the box of "provide services behind the security gate". They get to take their big profits.

And it's a captive market! What, you're not going to take a plan out of Dallas cuz you hate DFW? No! You're in Dallas! You don't have that much of a choice in the first place.

Airport operators of course benefit from _some_ customer satisfaction (in the same way that airliners feed people to keep the peace in the planes themselves on int'l flights). It's not like there's _no_ feedback loop. But "my beer is too expensive" is not going to register very high on their concerns.

There are also "legitimate" issues around how (especially behind security gates) there are logistics costs in running stuff. It's not like your delivery person can easily just show up at your doorstep with your frozen steaks or whatever you need to make food. But if they can put vending machines with reasonable costs at the top of Mt Takao, I feel like they could do a _bit_ better here.

There is so much of this opportunistic taking advantage of a captive audience in these kinds of places.

I hope this is just the beginning of cleaning up rip-offs like this (ballparks are skirting close). I hope this doesn't get buried under a pile of bribe money/contributions.

That’s starting to feel like a generalized descriptor of America.

Any reason why USA has the worst airports in the world?

Actually does anyone know if the infrastructure bill will improve anything?

I get that you must be one of the people compelled to shit on the US at every chance, but "worst airports in the world" is a stretch.

Most mediocre would probably be fair, I think.

I give you one reason why US airports really are the worst airports in the world. At least when you want to use them to transit to a third country.

For example: Flying to Latin America from Europe it would make a lot of sense to connect in the US. Miami, Atlanta or even New York would be convenient airports to connect on a flight between, say, Zurich and Lima.

The problem is that the concept of transit is completely foreign in American airports.

I need to get my luggage, actually pass customs and immigration, recheck my luggage, probably change terminals to something which is kilometers away with potentially bad transportation options between them. Dealing - yet again - with the friendly folks of the TSA. And all this to finally connect to my flight to Lima.

Instead of a 90 minute connection time (maybe 120 minutes on bigger airports) I have to calculate a minimum of 4 hours. Potentially more, because a lot of those variables are beyond my control and for no good reason whatsoever. I don't want to set foot on American soil, but just connect to a flight to a third country.

You don't need some spiffy Asian or European airport. Just about any developing world dump of an airport figured the concept of transit out decades ago.

I check my bags in to the final destination. I don't need to deal with potentially horrid immigration experiences, don't have to pass through security again (granted, that's dependent on the airport. But almost certainly less of a hassle then anyway in America)

Maybe transit is just not important in America with the lion share of flights being domestic. But for international travelers wanting to connect to a third country they really are at the bottom of the barrel.

It has some of the oldest airports in the world as well... they were some of the first airports to be build. La Guardia, the posterchild of airport decay, is just recently being renovated, it was built between 1929 - 1939. Almost 90 years ago, and with a completely different volume in mid (even though it has had enhancements in the 50s, and 60s).

Same reason the NYC subway looks so shaggy, it was built in 1909.

Most of the glitzy airports in the asian, and arab nations, were built recently in the last 20-30 years.

If you have been in the Berlin aiport (the one in the east side), looks like crap too, as it was built in the 50s, and kinda just merely renovated. it has a very communist nostalgic and brutalist feeling though. It kinda reminded me Albania's old airport.

Don’t come telling me about shaggy subways. Tokyo’s rails are nearly as old and they’re fine. More than fine, I’d argue.

Nearly as old is quite a fuzzy statement. The reality is that Tokyo only had a single line (Ginza) until the mid sixties and started operating in the end 1920s, period during which NYC subway grew several lines. Additionally, the first subway line in NYC still in operation today is the BMT Jamaica Line, with first trains running in 1885.

So actually, NYC rail is much older than Tokyo's. Could it be cleaner? definitely.

That's a lousy excuse.

Paris Orly opened in 1932, and it wasn't glamorous but looked a lot better than La Guardia, even before the ( ongoing ) renovations there ( at Orly). CDG opened in 1974, and is pretty brutalist because apparently that was liked then as a style.

The Paris metro and London underground both predate the NYC subway, and are both cleaner ( the Paris one is slightly dependent on the station) and look and feel better maintained. Heck, the Paris metro has two fully automatic lines, with another one being converted and 3 new ones being built.

Having old infrastructure doesn't mean it should be left to rot. It should be refreshed and upgraded, or replaced.

American airports pretty universally use jet bridges to board planes, which puts them well ahead of most major European airports, where you're gonna end up being packed in a bus half the time.

Unless you're somehow stuck in an airport for 6+ hours, I really only care about how much misery is added to the basic experience, and the US does pretty well overall, aside from the hostile security/border people.

Yeah actually driving to airport, parking and checking in is good. Mostly Europe wins on public transport to the airport.

The biggest issue with U.S. airports is the seating. No matter what airport you go to, its the same shitty chairs. You see people sleeping on the concrete floor where millions of people walk just because that is better than trying to rest your neck contorting on those chairs.

I was blown away in Europe. Entire sections with basically beach chairs. You could even pay money to sleep in a sound proof pod.

The jet bridge is more expensive (they take up more space, where you could park two planes).

The lowest cost European airlines avoid this expense.

However, I've hardly ever seen them at a major airport, with the exception of the huge airports almost exclusively used by budget airlines (Stansted etc).

US airports generally don’t get the level of national funding that many international airports do. There are way too many airports for the US federal government to support them the way that their international peers are, and states and cities don’t have the budget to pick up the slack.

Sure, it goes well with one of the worst rail systems in the world and some of the worst roads in the third world.

Seriously, why is it Washington has such trouble investing in infrastructure. Even with the trillion$ under the current proposed legislation, I'll bet precious few $ make it to airports/rails/roads.

Probably because most of this infrastructure is paid for and built by the State and city governments. It isn’t Federal jurisdiction.

Any reason to think American airports are bad or even below average? I’m not a super big world traveler, but having been in maybe 20 US airports and 10+ abroad, I think us is middle of the pack at worst.

There’s lots of law/finance reasons, but there are some more basic ones.

Airports in USA are like bus depots. Flying is such a mundane and normal activity like taking a long distance bus or train somewhere else in the world. They just don’t bother making them special.

I have been through a lot of airports around the world and the US ones are mostly pretty nice and diverse in character. Definitely no worse than Europe on average in my experience, and I’d argue a bit nicer. The major airports in Asia are consistently relatively nice, though the drop-off to second-tier airports can be a bit extreme.

I’m not sure how you could come to the conclusion that the US has terrible airports. LaGuardia, the subject of the article, is famously among the worst airports in the US. It stands out because it is so notoriously awful, and travelers avoid it for that reason. It is also really, really old.

Planet Money had a great podcast (https://www.npr.org/2018/11/22/670313841/atlanta-falcons-cut...) examining the other approach, the Atlanta Falcons lowering their food cost overall. I don't know if they continued down this path, but a quick search shows that it seems like they maintained low prices (https://mercedesbenzstadium.com/food-beverage/).

I'd be embarrassed to even expense this.

If you had ever had an expense account then you wouldn't. It's part of the deal.

The place I work requires you to take business class for transoceanic flights.

Somebody on my team got yelled at for taking coach after the event canceled and he couldn’t get a refund.

$8k for midwest to Glasgow? Sign me up lol

You're required to take it? And you get to expense it I assume? Blessed. I have to fight for it where I work.

We had one contract with frequent overseas travel where the prime contractor guys all got to expense business class -- they didn't tell us of course so for a couple years we were stuck in coach. But I found out somehow, and pretty quick our guys were flying business too. Living the dream.

It's pretty common for any flight over 4 hours to be business class required. I'm driving millions of dollars per revenue...being tired for the first 2 days of a 3 day trip to London simply isn't efficient.

The company I worked for didn't require it, but budgets were ummm... generous?

A last minute request (2 day before) to fly business to smaller European city was responded to with "yeah, that's fine, just keep the ticket under $20,000".

few years ago I was in JFK on business trip and experienced that specific and had the same feeling, then shrugged, bought it and expensed it. Nobody cared then and I don't think they would now.

I will admit to considering going into the “wrong” half of the international terminal at SFO to eat at Tartine or Kin Khao instead [1] and then head over to my flight. If the security line is short enough, it’s kind of worth it.

[1] https://sf.eater.com/2019/1/22/18193239/manufactory-food-hal...

On the flip side:

I remember scoring a pint of Goose Island Bourbon County Stout for $10.50 (?) At MSP about 4-5 years ago.

To this day the best surprise beer deal I’ve ever had.

My flight got cancelled out of Stockholm once and I was given the standard 'dinner' voucher the airlines give out. Not being particularly hungry, I walked up to the cheapest looking pub like place that would take this voucher and ordered a beer and some peanuts, and that alone cost more than what my food voucher was for.

Why not have a high price in travel hubs for a luxury that tends to reduce the Adult and let out the Child in us? (per Games People Play, a book on Transactional Analysis by Eric Berne, 1964) Seems like a public safety concern. How’s a high price on alcohol working out for Norway?

How much of this is just targeting business travelers who expense things like meals? Know most non-business travelers won't buy $29 beers?

Reminds me of the high end hotels that charge for wifi - because most people stay for business and they can just expense it.

The one redeeming quality of Laguardia and JFK is the Shake Shack. I never thought I'd herald a fast food place opening but it's so much better than anything else.

Portland’s PDX airport has awesome food carts inside from local joints. Delicious foods, awesome variety, fair prices.

I thought I had it bad with the $17 yogurt parfait I picked up on my last trip through SFO. $28 beer is next level.

Joe Biden on LaGuardia Airport: 'I must be in some third-world country'

https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/6/5387148/joe-biden-laguardi...

That’s a great reference, and it also puts into context his push for an infrastructure bill. It is clearly something he has cared about for a long time, not just a jobs program to mitigate CoVID’s economic impact.

Gee that is probably the most expensive pint I've ever seen.

Isn’t this just because most people aren’t paying?

It is like healthcare benefits. There is a cash price and an insurance price. The insurance price is because the person choosing isn’t the person paying, so there is no reason to care.

I think it is more of the standard ripoff pricing in and around NYC, which I assume is due to all the corruption and government debt.

I feel like facilities in that area are uniquely bad in terms of how expensive yet low quality they are compared to many other metros in the US.

It's due to the rent.

Prices in NYC are much higher in general than the rest country, but (surpringly) someone on quora does a much better job of explaining why than your speculation: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-New-York-City-so-expensive-when...

Are we bad at doing unit conversions?

Based on this link from relyks[1]....

“It’s just Sam Adams Summer Ale — that’s insane!” said Cooper Lund, 32, of Brooklyn, who encountered the pricey ($27.85) 23-ounce brew"

23 ounces. Almost 1.5 pints? Then at the bottom...

"And after passing on the high-priced Sam Adams Summer Ale, Lund said he settled for paying $11 for a 12-ounce beer."

0.75 pints. Which, in a 23-ounce portion, would have been $21.08.

[1] https://www.thecity.nyc/2021/8/1/22604814/nyc-airport-high-p...

I don't understand your comment. It's saying that he passed up a large, extremely high priced beer, and settled for a small, very high priced beer.

I think they are pointing out the weird menu pricing:

1x23 Oz beer for $27

2x12 Oz beers for $22

Normally drinks are cheaper/Oz for larger sizes.

GP is the friend who, when the gang all goes to Vegas, stands stoically behind everyone else playing for s__ts and giggles.

These are predatory prices because Americans drink a lot. As that buzz builds up, you won’t be thinking too much about continuously paying for a few more drinks. I’d love to know their cocktail prices.

If you’ve ever spent any time going to bars regularly, here’s a pro tip:

Just hit up the liquor store and buy a few 2 dollar shots. Keep asking for a soda at the bar. At most, the night may cost you 20-30 dollars. The only downside to this is that it’s very easy to pick up a drinking habit on the cheap.

These are predatory prices because people traveling for work will pay them and expense them.

> Just hit up the liquor store and buy a few 2 dollar shots.

Then what, walk through airport security with them?

you will also need a quart-sized ziploc:

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/...

I believe you can take 100ml in.

Ummmm.... Yes? I have done exactly this. The little shot sized plastic bottles are well under the liquid limit for airports in the U.S. I usually use them on the plane and mix them with the free ginger ale or tonic water.

>I usually use them on the plane and mix them with the free ginger ale or tonic water.

You probably won't get caught, just be aware doing this is against FAA regulations and will potentially get you fined.

It is illegal. I'd try it but the last half-dozen flights I was on, we were lucky to get 4-oz bottles of water.

Regulations are pretty clear - you can bring your own alcohol on a plane but yo can’t drink it: https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/packsafe/more_info/?hazmat=5

Thanks for pointing this out. I had no idea it was illegal and thought I was saving money with a simple hack. I will be more careful or pay for the drinks or opt out entirely in the future depending on my risk assessment.

> Then what, walk through airport security with them?

Last year I watched a few people down a fifth right before they were up for screening.

Yes. That's what I do. Even with an expense account I buy the single serving vodka at the liquor store nearby.

Liquor laws may differ where you are but I wouldn't recommend bringing alcohol into a bar where I live. If you're caught, you'll, at best, be kicked out.

I’ve done it plenty of times. Sit in the corner and pour in one of the shots, no one notices (the bottles are too small).

I’m not advocating ripping off the bar. But if you and whoever you may be with are already in $100 range, I think it’s fine to do. They markup the prices pretty dramatically and it makes a difference if you are going out a lot.

Ah yes, the good old system where you enjoy the premises and get to decide how much profit the place you enjoy should make.

Until anyone has run a bar, I don’t think they understand much about the industry’s finances. There are many costs that don’t appear obvious at first.

Don't worry. If you don't kill your favorite local business, some startup will eventually do it for you.

Just do what people do for drugs and go into the bathroom stall.

What's the worst case?

Depending on the local laws, being arrested might be possible. Laws around alcohol tend to be intentionally archaic. The other bad possibility is that the bouncer bounces you around a bit before shoving out the door and onto the street. Not likely most places but certainly possible in some of the edgier bars.

That's a "pro tip"? This is on page 1 of every college unofficial guide.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com