# What's wrong with airports (and train stations?)



## CHamilton (Jan 27, 2013)

Eleven things organizations can learn from airports

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2013/01/ten-things-organizations-can-learn-from-airports-.html



> Like colleges, airports see customers as powerless transients. Hey, you’re going to be gone tomorrow, but they’ll still be here.


...and ten more, all of which are to the point.


----------



## the_traveler (Jan 27, 2013)

At least #7 does not apply to Amtrak. I've seen a power strip set up in the upper level service area of a SightSeer Lounge that said "property of (the café LSA)"!


----------



## Anderson (Jan 27, 2013)

With respect to Amtrak:
1) Someone is clearly in charge.
2) Ok, turf wars happen, but 2 relates directly to 1. I suspect if airports had someone in charge, the TSA would get a good ass-chewing once in a while.
3) The on-board food usually has a bit of variety, and even when that fails, NYP, WAS, and CHI all have a reasonable selection of options. The biggest jam airports are in is that due to all of the post-9/11 crap, they can't even _try_ to attract outside customers to the airport to dine. Train stations are under no such limitation at the moment.
4) Amtrak does a better job of accommodating longer-term passengers. There's some of this in FF programs, but that's about it.
5) Amtrak does what it can here, but it is very rare to see trains cancelled.
6) May ******** the TSA.
7) And how many power strips have we come across on Amtrak over the years?
8) See 3/4.
9) Hard to fix, really, but Amtrak does limit the bad surprises to at least some extent.
10) Oh, how many times have we been recognized?
11) I think there are enough stories floating around to show this


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 27, 2013)

I can't make heads or tails of that blog post. It sounds like a bunch of pointless whining, with nothing useful in particular to gain from it.

His list seems to jump back and forth between issues with airports and issues with airlines, and some of the issues aren't really unique to either of those, but apply to any place where large crowds gather to conduct business.



> No one is in charge. The airport doesn’t appear to have a CEO, and if it does, you never see her, hear about her or interact with her in any way. When the person at the top doesn’t care, it filters down.


Airports do have people in charge. Sure, they may not be obvious, but they're there.

When's the last time you went to a shopping mall and saw the CEO of that mall?

Would you even recognize the airport manager if he walked right past you?



> Problems persist because organizations defend their turf instead of embrace the problem. The TSA blames the facilities people, who blame someone else, and around and around. Only when the user’s problem is the driver of behavior (as opposed to maintaining power or the status quo) things change.


And how is this different from any other organization on the face of the earth?



> The food is aimed squarely at the (disappearing) middle of the market. People who like steamed meat and bags of chips never have a problem finding something to eat at an airport. Apparently, profit-maximizing vendors haven’t realized that we’re all a lot weirder than we used to be.


I don't know what his last sentence even means, here. I'll grant that food at airports is overpriced, and generally nothing to write home about, but I've had some pretty good meals at airports as well. Sit-down restaurants exist in most places with a menu comparable to what you might find in a casual-but-decent non-airport restaurant. I've had some pretty good meals at the Philadelphia airport, and halfway-decent stuff at other airports.

Of the airports I've flown through recently, the only one that really gets a failing grade for food is Burbank, but that airport is such a neat little airport in so many other respects that I'll just accept that and remember to get something to eat before heading up there if I fly through there again.



> Like colleges, airports see customers as powerless transients. Hey, you’re going to be gone tomorrow, but they’ll still be here.


Don't know what that's supposed to mean. Many people fly regularly, so they may very well not be gone tomorrow. Airports often tend to have monopolies on the areas they serve, so there isn't the competition factor (to the end passenger) to encourage them to improve passenger facilities. Even where there is competition through multiple airports in a region, factors such as convenience to final destination and airfares probably have a larger impact on passenger bookings than the quality of the airport.

The comparison to colleges is invalid for a number of reasons. People generally have more choice in colleges than they do in airports, college is a larger personal investment, and they dynamics of how they operate are different.



> By removing slack, airlines create failure. In order to increase profit, airlines work hard to get the maximum number of flights out of each plane, each day. As a result, there are no spares, no downtime and no resilience. By assuming that their customer base prefers to save money, not anxiety, they create an anxiety-filled system.


Nothing to do with airports.



> The TSA is ruled by superstition, not fact. They act without data and put on a quite serious but ultimately useless bit of theater. Ten years later, the theater is now becoming an entrenched status quo, one that gets ever worse.


The TSA is an annoyance, to be sure. They spend way too much money for way too little effectiveness. It's sad to see the sheep getting in line and submitting to it (I opt out of the super scanners, and will do so for as long as opt-out remains an option).

My hope is that we don't turn the rest of the society into a TSA-like experience "for our own safety and security" (I'm thinking schools and shopping malls here).



> The ad hoc is forbidden. Imagine an airplane employee bringing in an extension cord and a power strip to deal with the daily occurrence of travelers hunched in the corner around a single outlet. Impossible. There is a bias toward permanent and improved, not quick and effective.


Airports are starting to provide more places to charge electronic devices. There are definitely safety and liability issues with having a bunch of cords laying around.

I'd be curious about what other examples of "ad hoc" being forbidden that he has. If the only complaint here is airline employees don't bring extension cords...please.



> Everyone is treated the same. Effective organizations treat different people differently. While there’s some window dressing at the edges (I’m thinking of slightly faster first class lines and slightly more convenient motorized cars for seniors), in general, airports insist that the one size they’ve chosen to offer fit all.


It's absolutely not the case that everyone is treated the same. The high-value frequent flyers get quite a bit more (and this is more of an airline issue than an airport one). Airlines have sponsored some of their frequent flyers into TSA pre-check. Even without pre-check, almost every airport has a separate security line for elite frequent flyers and premium class passengers. Flyers that want to pay for membership can join an airline club and have a much nicer waiting area.

But beyond that, what exactly is he looking for? Name one public facility that sees a high volume of traffic that doesn't, essentially, treat everyone the same? Other than check-in, security, and boarding, airports are largely self-serve.

When I go to the grocery store across the street, I get treated the same as everyone else in the store. When people ride Amtrak, I'd expect (except for different classes of service or those with particular special needs) everyone to be treated basically the same. When people go to a baseball stadium to watch a game, they are all treated the same by the staff (again, except for those who have tickets in certain sections which offer a premium experience).

This is no different than any other area of society.

What the hell does he want? A personalized escort to meet him at the check-in counter and hand him his favorite snack and a cup of tea, and a newspaper opened directly to the page with the article that would be of greatest interest to him?

This "complaint" really makes no sense. It's an airport, not his mother's house.



> There are plenty of potential bad surprises, but no good ones. You can have a flight be cancelled, be strip searched or even go to the wrong airport. But all possibility for delight has been removed. It wouldn’t take much to completely transform the experience from a chore to a delight.


There are plenty of potential bad surprises everywhere in life.

I don't agree that all possibility for delight has been removed. He just has unreasonable expectations. He says it "wouldn't take much" to make the airport experience better, but for something he claims is so simple, he gives not one single example of how he would do it.



> They are sterile. Everyone who passes through leaves no trace, every morning starts anew. There are no connections between people, either fellow passengers or the staff. No one says, “welcome back,” and that’s honest, because no one feels particularly welcome.


Personally, I don't think I'd want people to leave "traces" of their presence when they pass through, whatever that means.

There are plenty of connections between people. Those who travel really frequently will start to recognize the same staff. The rest of the lack of social connections has more to do with society than with the airports. Do you see any more "connectivity" going on at a coffee shop? All I see are people on their phones or laptops (which, incidentally, is what I see at airports and train stations, too).

But in an industry where you deal with thousands of different people every day, it's hard to get to know people. That's probably the reason why people don't tell me "welcome back" when I return to the grocery store, or the fast food restaurant down the street.



> No one is having any fun. Most people who work at airports have precisely the same demeanor as people who work at a cemetery. The system has become so industrialized that personal expression is apparently forbidden.


Um...what?



I'm sorry, but this guy is just full of BS.


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 27, 2013)

Just as info, the board turned two of my above links into videos, and left the other two as text.

Here are the other two videos I was trying to show (plus links for the first two):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn0fXiadFTk


----------



## TimePeace (Jan 27, 2013)

That blog fits quite nicely into my category of "who cares what that nitwit thinks".


----------



## jis (Jan 27, 2013)

CHamilton said:


> Eleven things organizations can learn from airportshttp://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2013/01/ten-things-organizations-can-learn-from-airports-.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Clearly he has never been to any of the better airports in the world 

The writer could not be more wrong, unless he is just focusing on podunk airport. I tend to agree with Maine Rider's and Trog's sentiments. What a pile of horsepucky!


----------



## trainman74 (Jan 28, 2013)

Trogdor said:


> Of the airports I've flown through recently, the only one that really gets a failing grade for food is Burbank, but that airport is such a neat little airport in so many other respects that I'll just accept that and remember to get something to eat before heading up there if I fly through there again.


Burbank's actually a bit better than it used to be for food options, now that there are several eateries on airport property within walking distance (Del Taco, McDonald's, Denny's) -- of course, once in the terminal and past security, there aren't many options, but then, there's not much space.


----------



## John Bredin (Jan 29, 2013)

Trogdor said:


> > The food is aimed squarely at the (disappearing) middle of the market. People who like steamed meat and bags of chips never have a problem finding something to eat at an airport. Apparently, profit-maximizing vendors haven’t realized that we’re all a lot weirder than we used to be.
> 
> 
> I don't know what his last sentence even means, here.


"Wierder" is an odd way to phrase it, but I presume he means that nowadays tastes are broader and people eat a wider variety of cuisines (Asian, Latin, etc.) and diets (vegan, vegetarian, paleo, etc.) than, say, 30 years ago but, in his opinion, airport food concessions are serving the "same old, same old." In particular, his "steamed meat and bags of chips" comment sounds like a vegan or vegetarian frustrated by not finding a suitable food option at the airport because the "wide variety of dining options in our terminals" (hamburgers, hot dogs, pizza, chicken, Mexican, Italian) are still fundamentally meat-based. Or someone doing the paleo diet who's frustrated because that same "variety" is so starch-based. 

I'm not sure that's true, or how widely true it is for smaller vs. larger airports, but I understand his premise.


----------



## fairviewroad (Jan 29, 2013)

Trogdor said:


> I can't make heads or tails of that blog post. It sounds like a bunch of pointless whining, with nothing useful in particular to gain from it.


Sounds like he'd fit right in here on Amtrak Unlimited! :giggle:


----------



## jis (Jan 29, 2013)

fairviewroad said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > I can't make heads or tails of that blog post. It sounds like a bunch of pointless whining, with nothing useful in particular to gain from it.
> ...


That thought did occur to me but I did not want to upset everyone here 

As for food choices the variety and breadth depends on the size of the airport and the variety of places that flights from there go to. Larger airports which have Japanese, Chinese and other Asian destinations served directly tend to have much higher variety of food available, including vegetarian and non-starch, than airports that do not have such flights. It all depends on the airport and even specific terminals of the airport, and it is hard to make a general statement about all airports on this matter.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 29, 2013)

I love it. Guy blogs about what he sees as wrong with flying. Member posts link to blog. Suddenly several people take personal offense that someone has an opinion they don't share. Truly hilarious.


----------

