Airport
Turkish Airlines has built an impressive business lounge at its hub is Istanbul, with the best sleeping rooms I’ve seen anywhere in the world, including in First Class lounges. The best, that is, until you try to sleep — unless you don’t mind loud noise that even Bose headphones on top of earplugs can’t block out.
As I’ve written before, Turkish has made significant progress in recent years toward becoming a world-class carrier, but it’s still a long way from being anywhere close to the top. It rushes to do something it deems top-notch but doesn’t really think it through — and for high-end customers, a little glitz doesn’t sparkle brightly enough if the entire experience is inconsistent and unpredictable.
So Turkish designed these fabulous sleeping rooms in its relatively new Istanbul lounge, which are no different from really nice, albeit small, hotel rooms — with a real bed, comfortable and clean linens, desk, closet, bathrobe and slippers. But then it put shower suites right across from the sleeping-room doors, just a few feet away.
Admittedly, my first thought when I saw that setup was, “How convenient.” I used one of those rooms in the early morning hours several weeks ago after misconnecting on my way to Iraq. I took a shower and hoped to get at least three hours of sleep. Unfortunately, halfway through my rest, I was awoken by loud noise coming from passengers using the showers and staff cleaning the suites — not the actual showering and cleaning, but the talking and laughing right outside my door.
Since my earplugs were obviously not helping, I added my Bose headphones as reinforcement, even though sleeping with them is not exactly comfortable — all in vein. There was no more sleep. The glass divide that served as a wall also prevented the room from becoming sufficiently dark, but there are eyeshades for that.
At the end of the day, a great idea and superb product didn’t leave me with a great overall experience because of poor floor design and execution. Perhaps better soundproofing would have minimized the noise, if there was no way to isolate the sleeping room at least somewhat from the main lounge area. One could argue that lying in a real bed is still a luxury at an airport, even if you can’t sleep, but that’s not the point. Why not just put open beds right in the middle of the lounge? Or why have beds at all?
Two weeks earlier, I had used a sleeping room in Thai Airways’ First Class lounge in Bangkok. The rooms and beds weren’t nearly as fancy and comfortable as those in Istanbul, but the main lounge area was much farther away. Both Turkish and Thai are members of the global Star Alliance.
I suppose we can’t have it all.
Related stories:
Airlines neglect non-flying experience
Round the world in a week, without pain
Dulles Airport enters the modern age
Military lounges are airport oases
Delayed at the airport? Enjoy!
When I landed at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport today, I had one of my easiest, fastest and smoothest international arrival experiences. But I wondered where all those airlines that last year fought and won a fierce battle over the right to fly to Haneda actually were.
It appears the industry overestimated Haneda’s appeal to travelers, and it also might have miscalculated how many passengers remain in Tokyo, as opposed to those who connect to other destinations.
It’s true that the March earthquake and tsunami had a negative impact on travel to Japan in general, but traffic to and from the much bigger Narita Airport has largely recovered.
Haneda’s smaller size and proximity to central Tokyo provide a significant advantage. However, as I first wrote two years ago, most medium- and long-haul flights arrive and depart between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. — not exactly the most preferred time by the majority of travelers. In addition, onward flight connections from Haneda are extremely limited.
That didn’t seem to bother most airlines last year, when the rights to fly from various foreign cities to Haneda were being awarded by the Japanese and other governments. U.S. carriers in particular made rather bold proposals. In the end, the Department of Transportation gave American Airlines the right to fly from New York, Delta from Detroit and Los Angeles, and Hawaiian Airlines from Honolulu.
American’s flights are nowhere to be found in its winder schedule, though they are planned for next summer. The same goes for Delta’s Detroit flights. It does operate the LA flight throughout the year, as does Hawaiian on the Honolulu route. Air Canada has postponed indefinitely its plan for flights from Vancouver, even though it started selling tickets late last year.
The Japanese carriers have trimmed their plans, too. All Nippon Airways has kept only LA in North America, while Japan Airlines serves San Francisco. European and other long-haul routes are also very few.
British Airways is the only foreign carrier outside Asia and the United States that currently flies to Haneda — and not every day. The Asian carriers include Air China, Asiana, Cathay Pacific, China Airlines, AirAsia, China Eastern, Eva Airways, Korean Air, Malaysia Airlines, Shanghai Airlines, Singapore Airlines and Thai Airways.
Flights loads to and from Haneda are not what those carriers expected — my Singapore Airlines flight was less than half-full in Economy and about two-thirds full in Business Class, where I had two lie-flat seats to myself, though even one would have been just fine.
Related stories:
When ‘open skies’ aren’t really open
U.S. flights likely to Tokyo Haneda
Continue reading about Carriers lose appetite for Tokyo Haneda
I’ve always been puzzled by the grand “international” designation of numerous small airports throughout the United States, just because they boast the odd flight to and from Canada.
While Canada is, indeed, a foreign country, this week’s incident with a Virgin Atlantic plane at Bradley Airport in Hartford, Conn., provides sufficient justification for my bewilderment.
The image on the left is the official logo of the airport at issue, with the word “international” displayed very prominently. Yet, when the Virgin flight from London to Newark, N.J., was diverted to Hartford because of bad weather further south, about 300 passengers were forcibly confined to the aircraft for four hours without water or food. Some of them got sick and fainted, and chaos reined on board, according to press accounts.
Why? Because there was no one from the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP) division — immigration and customs officers, in plainer English — to process the travelers.
It’s unclear why it was decided that the plane should land at Bradley, instead of Boston, for example, which has a fully operational CBP facility. I wouldn’t be surprised if whoever made the decision didn’t even think about the lack of immigration and customs in Hartford.
Or perhaps they assumed that having “international” in the airport’s official name actually meant that it could handle international arrivals. Alas, flights from Canada don’t require such processing, because all CBP procedures are done at the respective Canadian airport, and those flights are treated as domestic arrivals once they land in the United States.
So it’s time the U.S. government rethought its “international airport” designation policies and made sure those designations match an airport’s true capabilities.
Continue reading about U.S. should change ‘international airport’ designation policy
How many busloads of passengers does it take to fill a Boeing 747? Ask the Frankfurt Airport.
With all the innovations and conveniences brought to modern airports, it’s inexplicable to me why airports in some of the most developed countries on the planet remind one of the Third World. Many travelers often complain about London’s Heathrow, but I find Frankfurt no less frustrating.
I realize there are not enough gates with jet bridges, and some airlines prefer “remote” gates because their use is cheaper, but I can’t remember flying through Frankfurt and not being taken to or from a plane by bus at least once. As of this week, I’ve had 111 takeoffs and landings at that airport.
As much as I hate the buses, by now I’m used to the prospect of having to put up with them, especially for flights to certain destinations. Most of the time, such flights are flown on narrow-body aircraft, such as Boeing 737 and Airbus 320, which can be filled with just two busloads.
This week, however, I experienced boarding a United Airlines Boeing 747 by bus. I was sure the flight wouldn’t leave on time, and I was right. I can hardly wait for the expansion of Terminal 1 to be completed.
What’s even harder for me to understand is why there aren’t enough gates with jetways at the much newer Munich Airport. I was also disappointed by the transfer experience there this week. With 52 takeoffs and landings, this was the first time I had to change terminals. I arrived at Terminal 1 — courtesy of another bus — and it took me about 45 minutes to reach Terminal 2. The signage was very poor, and the shuttle bus between the terminals runs only once every 20 minutes.
U.S. airports may have their problems, but when was the last time you were taken to the plane by bus?
It doesn’t happen very often that I fly a new route on United Airlines, especially out of Washington — it seems I’ve flown a huge number of them. But my 467th United flight this week was on the relatively new nonstop service to Moscow.
That flight is flown on a Boeing 767, which means that it’s reconfigured with the new truly flat business-class seats. Even better, upgrading to business on that flight is usually fairly easy, and I was on a pretty high M fare, so I never had any doubt my upgrade would clear.
By the time that happened a week before the flight, I had two choices in terms of window seating: a forward-facing seat in the row before the last or a rear-facing seat in the first row of the business cabin. About six months ago, I would have chosen the first option, but after flying backward from San Francisco to Sydney in December, the direction doesn’t bother me anymore. Each couple of seats feels very much like a private compartment, and you don’t really see anything outside that compartment while seated, so you forget there are other passengers facing in a different direction. I chose the first row because it’s away from the galley and the coach cabin, which makes it quieter and less trafficked.
It was a standard United flight in terms of the service — pretty good, but nothing spectacular. My glass of water never remained empty for too long. A couple of flight attendants asked if I worked for United, because I looked familiar — that tells you how often I’m on those planes.
My routine on long-haul flights begins with changing into my plane pajamas, which are given to first-class passengers on some non-U.S. carriers — this time, I’d taken a set from Lufthansa, but I usually rotate them with sets from SWISS or Singapore Airlines. I used to change after takeoff, but by the time the seat-belt sign is off, the service has already begun, and I’d rather not be in the flight attendants’ way.
During takeoff, I read newspapers — usually the Financial Times, where I used to write, and the International Herald Tribune on flights originating outside the United States. Then I turned on my entertainment system and start a film — “Valentine’s Day” was the first one I watched. It didn’t do well at the box office when it was released in February, despite the all-star cast and the director Gary Marshall, who also did “Pretty Woman.” I thought it was good enough for a plane ride.
After dinner — not-so-tasty chicken breast and cheesecake — and Chardonnay, it was bedtime. The flight left as 5 p.m., so it was too early to sleep. I tried really hard but not very successfully. At least I had a long and nice rest in a flat bed. Later, I watched another film — the very good documentary, “Celine: Through the Eyes of the World.”
Breakfast was disappointing, as it usually is in United business — just a croissant and fruit — and way behind competition, but United has never excelled at its soft product. Only first class gets eggs for breakfast.
This was my seventh time in Moscow, but the first at Domodedovo Airport — I found it much nicer than Sheremetevo. It was my 202th airport overall, according to my profile on FlightMemory.
Continue reading about Flying new United route — rare occurrence
