Having just enjoyed a couple of days in Amsterdam hard on the heels of my trip to PNG via Singapore I have had the chance to compare what are probably the world's two best international transfer airports. One thing that struck me about both was the immense size of the airports and the superb way that all terminals are integrated both internally and externally with other transport systems. For the first journey I had left from the horror that Heathrow Terminal 3 has become and for the second from the horribly traffic congested due badly thought out new procedures Gatwick North Terminal. I am embarrassed for London by the current state of two premier gateways.
Both Changi and Schipol were immaculate, spacious, well signed and superbly furnished with restaurants, bars, internet access and even opportunities for a between flight massage.
Walking distances in both airports are extreme but with working (note to Gatwick.. working is important!) travellators and spacious walkways connecting gates and terminals.
In neither airport were shops busy, such that there was need to queue for anything (note to WH Smith in both Heathrow and Gatwick.. get a grip your snaking system doesn't work and your narrow isle stocking policy is a travesty !)
If I had to choose one over the other, Changi would be Number one, if only because of its wonderful Vietnamese coffee shops (try the ones using condensed milk) and its smiling attendants, who approach you to help rather than waiting to be asked. But the truth is both were a model of how to run an international airport successfully and for the benefit of the passengers rather than the employees or ownership
In a global world economies prosper through good air links and in a business which is focussed on helping the growth of airlines in developing economies we understand the need for efficiently run international Airports.. so well done to Amsterdam and Singapore.. on the statistical sample of one person, one journey I'd recommend both to any passenger looking to interline in Europe or the Far East.
Both Changi and Schipol were immaculate, spacious, well signed and superbly furnished with restaurants, bars, internet access and even opportunities for a between flight massage.
Walking distances in both airports are extreme but with working (note to Gatwick.. working is important!) travellators and spacious walkways connecting gates and terminals.
In neither airport were shops busy, such that there was need to queue for anything (note to WH Smith in both Heathrow and Gatwick.. get a grip your snaking system doesn't work and your narrow isle stocking policy is a travesty !)
If I had to choose one over the other, Changi would be Number one, if only because of its wonderful Vietnamese coffee shops (try the ones using condensed milk) and its smiling attendants, who approach you to help rather than waiting to be asked. But the truth is both were a model of how to run an international airport successfully and for the benefit of the passengers rather than the employees or ownership
In a global world economies prosper through good air links and in a business which is focussed on helping the growth of airlines in developing economies we understand the need for efficiently run international Airports.. so well done to Amsterdam and Singapore.. on the statistical sample of one person, one journey I'd recommend both to any passenger looking to interline in Europe or the Far East.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
