Hacker News Reader

> And other countries are any better...? Try replacing "Americans" with "people".

Japanese escalator etiquette is impeccable. I used to take a four-story escalator at rush hour every morning and even though I’d walk past about 200 meters of people in line, the right side was always free for walkers.

It’s gotten slightly worse in the past decade or so—I won’t speculate about the reasons—but people doing it wrong are very much still rare enough to be the unexpected annoyance.

> If the author studied the economics of airport shops they would no longer be confounded.

Can you elaborate? I concur with the author. If there were more reasonable priced shops, I would probably spend 3-4x what I do. Smaller profit but greater wallet share.

One high profit “receipt” is better than several smaller profit receipts summing to the same total. Why? Lower transaction cost.

I'm no expert on the economics of airport shops, but here's my take:

Rent prices for airport shops are high and space is limited. If you reduce your prices to be more reasonable, you are relying on volume to make ends meet. This is challenging because space for inventory is limited and expensive in an airport.

So, most shops in airports either (1) have to charge high prices to make a profit, or (2) aren't actually in the business of making a profit and are instead a marketing tactic for big brands. There's a lot of foot traffic in airports, so the big luxury brands will be willing to spend money on an airport storefront, even if it comes out as a net loss on sales.

Which is funny, because the airport versions of most luxury stores are just way worse than the regular stores. Poorly attended to and somehow always manage to look cheap.

> Airports provide what they think customers want. Generally travelers want familiarity, which chain restaurants provide.

Indeed. For most people at an airport, they have a time boxed period to eat. The sitdown place with unknown ticket times does not work.

The other thing is an unknown restaurant in an airport is an unknown quantity - it could be garbage or it could be really good, but if you're travelling and just want food to be done with, the chain restaurants provide predictable averageness.

Indeed, this is why some around the world view Americans with the stereotype of only eating McDonald's when they get to their country. (Or British who only eat breakfasts or fish n chips etc)

It's predicable and just gets food done with. Life is an unknown quantity.

It's gotten better in recent years. In most airports, I can find something decent like one of the premium burger places which I rather like in general or an outpost of a good local restaurant. But, yeah, numerically-speaking airports are dominated by well-known lowest common denominator national chains.

Come to Munich - there is a brewery right at the airport. Can't be more local. https://www.munich-airport.de/airbraeu/en

It’s an airport restaurant, of course they’re going to be quick about it.

> And other countries are any better...? Try replacing "Americans" with "people".

Yes, I wouldn't extend it to all people of any nationality, but e.g. London tends to have better escalator behaviour because they're so frequently encountered by large groups of people on subways, and last time I was there, even some stations had signs to encourage the "keep right if standing".

> When cities grew before airports and so the underground is already full of subways and infrastructure, it can be prohibitively expensive to build a new fast tunnel to downtown.

I would say London is a clear counter argument to this. There was no need for a new underground tunnel, the Heathrow Express uses existing train track, just prioritised in such a way that it gets to the centre of the city in 15 minutes.

That's not a counterargument, just an example where it happened to work out.

In many places, existing train track isn't suitable. E.g. there's only a single track in either direction so a fast train can't pass a local one that makes every stop, or the track/signaling isn't designed for high speeds, or a combination of tracks with incompatible gauges would be needed, or a million other reasons.

Just because it works in one place doesn't mean it works as a general rule.

Heathrow Airport didn't open with a railway connection.

The Underground (metro) was extended to the airport in 1975-1977.

The first heavy rail connection opened in 1998.

A significant extension to this connection (trains right through London) should open in 2023.

There are also buses, which can be useful for the nearby suburbs, but are probably used more by staff than passengers. (The one time I used one of the local buses, it stopped at the freight terminal, then a staff-only entrance, then the passenger terminals.)

Most medium or large airports in Europe have a rail connection to the nearest city. Smaller ones have express buses to the city centre; at the smallest ones the buses are only scheduled at flight arrival/departure times.

New track was built for the Heathrow Express, it opened in 1998. 2 × 5 miles of tunnel, plus a bridge/flyover to cross the Great Western Mainline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Express

> When cities grew before airports and so the underground is already full of subways and infrastructure, it can be prohibitively expensive to build a new fast tunnel to downtown.

If the city is already full of subways, the job should be easier, not harder - now you only have to tunnel your way to the closest existing station and then extend the line.

If only it were that simple. So now your supposedly "fast" direct train is stuck waiting behind a local subway that makes every single stop, because there's only a single train track in each direction.

Believe me, if the job were easier, it would be done everywhere already.

A frequent, local subway can be as fast as a "big" train plus a connection. From Copenhagen Airport to the centre, by ordinary metro, is 17 minutes. I'll take a subway connection over a bus any day.

Anyway, this comment suggests the reason it's a problem in the USA is regulation. (I can't speculate on why this happened, I don't see which political group is supposed to benefit.)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27944624