Air France Frequence Plus - Things are improving: CDG rated only second worst airport in the world

Original press release (http://www.prioritypass.com/Press/Heathrow-bottom-of-worldwide-poll.cfm)

Coverage in the press around the world:

Source 1 (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/global-poll-taps-singapore-as-best-airport-heathrow-worst-1809735.html)

Source 2 (http://in.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idINIndia-43373420091023)

Source 3 (http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/world/article165067.ece)

To be fair, there must be airports that are far worse. Kabul, some African destinations, etc. But outside the third world and recognized war zones (I mean places like Somalia, not Bidonville-sous-Bois in the 93), London and Paris are pretty bad.

LAX, FRA and MIA also don't look good.

Bit bizarre the coverage that survey is getting really. I am not sure how the views of Priority Pass card holders are entirely reflective of the travelling population. Would it not just indicate that the PP lounges in Paris and Heathrow are rubbish? As you rightly point out, there are obviously far worse airports than these two - so what is this trying to tell us? As a frequent visitor to Luanda I can assure you all that I would swap 12 hours in Terminal One at Heathrow for half an hour in Luanda airport. Ironically it has improved a bit since becoming a temporary structure recently! Bit hot though...I digress.

Heathrow and Paris are terrible IF you are having to change terminal. Heathrow has its delightful dark corridors with loose wiring around T1 - T3. T4 is apparently improving though not seen it for myself. T5 is very odd. Quite nice but whoever sold them the security scanners and luggage scanner must have had a good salesman. Wierd at best.

Paris is only a nightmare if you are going from 2 to either 1 or 3 from what I can see. Just a bit of a walk between the wings at T2 (2G excepted) but hey, I usually arrive and depart from 2E so its straightforward enough. I have been to plenty worse airports than these two.

The top three in the survey are what you would expect....so what does it tell you? Not a lot in my view.....

Some third world countries manage to get excellent airports though, and I rate Kuala Lumpur's airport as high as Singapore's. I guess the respondants travel more often to Singapore than Malaysia, so it's not a surprise it's not highly ranked.

Some third world countries manage to get excellent airports though, and I rate Kuala Lumpur's airport as high as Singapore's. I guess the respondants travel more often to Singapore than Malaysia, so it's not a surprise it's not highly ranked.

Very true indeed. Although I am not sure I would put Malaysia in the same bucket as say, Guinea-Bissau or Democratic Republic of Congo.

Whilst it is possibly true that some third world airports are excellent, I am struggling to think of where they are. I guess it depends on what you define as third world....certainly Malaysia and Singapore are not in my view!

1. Do we speak of T1, T2 or T3?
2. Are you a big fans of Atlanta, Detroit, Miami, Los Angeles, Boston airports?? Or italian airports?

Heathrow and Paris are terrible IF you are having to change terminal. Heathrow has its delightful dark corridors with loose wiring around T1 - T3. T4 is apparently improving though not seen it for myself. T5 is very odd. Quite nice but whoever sold them the security scanners and luggage scanner must have had a good salesman. Wierd at best.

Paris is only a nightmare if you are going from 2 to either 1 or 3 from what I can see. Just a bit of a walk between the wings at T2 (2G excepted) but hey, I usually arrive and depart from 2E so its straightforward enough. I have been to plenty worse airports than these two.



To me, CDG is not only horrible if you have to go from T2 to T1 or T3 but also if you are parked remotely, which still happens FAR too often and never does at Heathrow. I also find transfer at LHR globally much easier than at CDG (did T3 Turkish to T5 BA the other day and it was a breeze, overall shorter and more civilised than 2F2 to 2F1!)

I do agree that many airports are undoubtedly worse than CDG or LHR if you go to remote third world countries, but isn't the issue that CDG is far worse than it NEEDS to be. I mean, I've never been to Kabul airport but I can well imagine why this would be a terrible airport. On the other hand, I do NOT understand why there is often no EU queue at passport control at CDG. It simply makes no sense and there is no excuse. It also makes no sense why they will park remotely anything from a 77W to an A321 or bus you around from 2G to 2E or 2B to 2F.

And yes, I completely agree that airports like LAX are way worse than CDG by my books, but I would say that CDG is one of the worst organised hubs by any major airline and that AF is 100% to blame for it.

Also discussed elsewhere on the net:

- http://voyageforum.com/voyage/classement_2009_des_aeroports_D2974103/ (in French)
- http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4588915/

Since I regularly fly LAX-CDG I find CDG FAR BETTER than LAX. Although that is not saying much :D

Some third world countries manage to get excellent airports though, and I rate Kuala Lumpur's airport as high as Singapore's. I guess the respondants travel more often to Singapore than Malaysia, so it's not a surprise it's not highly ranked.

I agree with your statement regarding KLIA! (developing nation!)...anyone tried Accra of late?

I agree with your statement regarding KLIA! (developing nation!)...anyone tried Accra of late?

Developing perhaps.....third world, certainly not.

To me, CDG is not only horrible if you have to go from T2 to T1 or T3 but also if you are parked remotely, which still happens FAR too often and never does at Heathrow

Whilst generally correct thats not entirely true. Connecting on BA from T3 to T5 and vice versa is a pain in the a*se and only happens because certain destinations are from T3 - see Lisbon for example (unless thats changed recently). Of course at T3 it has always been a remote stand in my experience so we get the same experience as CDG - except more dingy.

I think the fact that this survey was conducted only among Priority Pass holders invalidates it completely. This is not a survey or all experienced travels. This is one of an extremely select subset of passengers, all of whom are most likely to have exactly the same amenities (Priority Pass Lounges). I'd be willing to bet that the PP lounges at CDG, LHR, and LAX are all pretty mediocre. Perhaps someone flying AF F out of CDG would be much more favorable? Someone flying BA F out of LHR T5 would certainly find the airport pretty impressive (Concorde Room Lounge).

That being said, I don't think that CDG is that bad. With the exception of T1 (which, in fairness, I haven't been to for 10 yrs, so it may have improved since then), the concourses are overall pretty decent. They're no worse than most other major hubs. LAX also isn't necessarily bad, so long as you're not flying out of TBIT. And even TBITs no worse than some terminals in JFK and other airports.

Developing perhaps.....third world, certainly not.


I guess it depends on how you interpret "third world". It means all countries outside NATO (first world) and outside the Warsaw Pact (second world), and not controlled by the former colonial powers. So Malaysia certainly is. It acquired the meaning of "poor, wartorn and underdeveloped" but many third world countries are developing, and these can achieve better results in certain areas (KLIA) than many First World countries (CDG, LAX). One shouldn't see all Third World countries as Somalia-like countries.

I guess it depends on how you interpret "third world". It means all countries outside NATO (first world) and outside the Warsaw Pact (second world), and not controlled by the former colonial powers. So Malaysia certainly is. It acquired the meaning of "poor, wartorn and underdeveloped" but many third world countries are developing, and these can achieve better results in certain areas (KLIA) than many First World countries (CDG, LAX). One shouldn't see all Third World countries as Somalia-like countries.

Sounds like the use of 'first' world etc. is outdated then if thats the definition! Outside NATO???? I would argue that even developing is a nonsensical word to use but there is no real need to quibble over what is essentially an irrelevance to whether LHR is crap or not!

Bit bizarre the coverage that survey is getting really. I am not sure how the views of Priority Pass card holders are entirely reflective of the travelling population. Would it not just indicate that the PP lounges in Paris and Heathrow are rubbish?

I think the fact that this survey was conducted only among Priority Pass holders invalidates it completely. This is not a survey or all experienced travels. This is one of an extremely select subset of passengers, all of whom are most likely to have exactly the same amenities (Priority Pass Lounges). I'd be willing to bet that the PP lounges at CDG, LHR, and LAX are all pretty mediocre.

Classic strategy to make a bad result look good: challenge the methodology. Trouble is that *every* survey places CDG (along with LHR) at the bottom. There have even been surveys that included Baghdad and Kabul - and still CDG managed to be in the worst.

So maybe the PP survey puts Paris as second worst, other surveys only as thrid worst, and again other surveys as the worst of all. But isn't there a pattern?

And PP lounges in CDG not being great (which I don't know about, never used one): that somehow fits the pattern. With the exception of the AF Premiere lounge and the EK lounge all lounges are merely mediocre or outright terrible. And it's not only airlines' fault.

1. Do we speak of T1, T2 or T3?

Does it matter? True, the architecture is different: a concrete block which feels like a parking lot even in the pax areas - nice and light in Terminal 2F and 2E, even if it means that a roof can collapse over your head - shantytown for Terminal 3 and Terminal 2G.

But they all share some things: dirt and filth including clochards in residence, unmaintained/ broken /dysfunctional technical infrastructure, unnecessarily complex pax flows, silly layout, often understaffed security filters and passport controls, security staff that are particularly retarded and unfriendly, "underperforming" luggage management, ground staff that too often are impolite and show that they don't like their job, insufficient support for handicapped pax, long waits for gateways/buses to disembark, planes that cannot park because ground material is blocking their way, whimsy staff that go on strike for silly things, complete chaos at the slightest hint of bad weather, poor public transport links - if I had to find the definition of a bad airport, I couldn't think of much more.

2. Are you a big fans of Atlanta, Detroit, Miami, Los Angeles, Boston airports?? Or italian airports?

Downward benchmarking again. What is your point? Other airports aren't perfect either? So what? Does that make CDG a good airport? Is it OK to kill someone simply because you're not the only one to do it? And yes, give me Atlanta or Malpensa over CDG any day.

The point is that CDG has no reason not to be like Hong Kong or Amsterdam or Tokyo. It isn't, it fails that test dramatically, and that is the criticism. This and other surveys confirm that again and again.

That being said, I don't think that CDG is that bad. With the exception of T1 (which, in fairness, I haven't been to for 10 yrs, so it may have improved since then), the concourses are overall pretty decent. They're no worse than most other major hubs.

See above. As to the "improvements" to T1: expect to be underwhelmed.

Classic strategy to make a bad result look good: challenge the methodology. Trouble is that *every* survey places CDG (along with LHR) at the bottom. There have even been surveys that included Baghdad and Kabul - and still CDG managed to be in the worst.

No strategy, just merely pointing out that ANY survey that can put CDG as worse than LAD (it's currently a large TENT for gods sake!) or Lagos is flawed. I have not been to Baghdad or Kabul, but I know people that have and it is almost impossible to comprehend how CDG can be worse then them in pretty much any category. Perhaps the people that undertake these 'surveys' need to go to airports in the 'third' world and do the survey there as well? I am guessing that most survey companies don't pitch up in Lagos to survey passengers for example?

Trust me, I can't really stand Heathrow and CDG isn't great but you can't really take a survey like this seriously as it is flawed by people's expectations. People expect a French or UK airport to be good so when it isn't perfect it becomes crap. People expect Kabul to be crap and when it turns out not to be quite as crap as they expect (but still awful), it's suddenly not so bad.

The best survey is your own experience anyway so if you have had numerous terrible experiences then you vote with your feet.

No strategy, just merely pointing out that ANY survey that can put CDG as worse than LAD (it's currently a large TENT for gods sake!) or Lagos is flawed. I have not been to Baghdad or Kabul, but I know people that have and it is almost impossible to comprehend how CDG can be worse then them in pretty much any category. Perhaps the people that undertake these 'surveys' need to go to airports in the 'third' world and do the survey there as well? I am guessing that most survey companies don't pitch up in Lagos to survey passengers for example?

Trust me, I can't really stand Heathrow and CDG isn't great but you can't really take a survey like this seriously as it is flawed by people's expectations. People expect a French or UK airport to be good so when it isn't perfect it becomes crap. People expect Kabul to be crap and when it turns out not to be quite as crap as they expect (but still awful), it's suddenly not so bad.

Yes and no. Yes, I absolutely agree with your point that many airports must be worse (I said that in my initial post as well). The people publishing the survey should have made it "worst airport in the developed world". But no, it's not "flawed", merely the title of the survey does not match the sample size.

The best survey is your own experience anyway so if you have had numerous terrible experiences then you vote with your feet.

Now how would I do that? :confused: I need to fly from/to Paris. Orly has some flights, but the bulk is from CDG. Any technical suggestions of how to vote with my feet? I may chose my airline, but chosing the airport at origin or destination city is a bit difficult. And I won't be moving homes just because of the airport (I imagine the newspaper headlines: "Exodus of Paris residents to Singapore because of better airport").

Classic strategy to make a bad result look good: challenge the methodology. Trouble is that *every* survey places CDG (along with LHR) at the bottom. There have even been surveys that included Baghdad and Kabul - and still CDG managed to be in the worst.

So maybe the PP survey puts Paris as second worst, other surveys only as thrid worst, and again other surveys as the worst of all. But isn't there a pattern?

And PP lounges in CDG not being great (which I don't know about, never used one): that somehow fits the pattern. With the exception of the AF Premiere lounge and the EK lounge all lounges are merely mediocre or outright terrible. And it's not only airlines' fault.



I'm not challenging the methodology to make a bad result look good. I'm challenging it because it produces results that can't be trusted. While I agree that CDG and LHR are pretty awful airports (and perhaps, arguably, even merit these ratings), you cannot create a survey of such a specific group and claim it to be representative. It could be used to say that CDG/LHR are the worst airports according to PP holders, and explain why. But to advertise it as something representative of all travelers (which they basically did, even if they did mention it was a survey of PP holders) is inaccurate and deceptive. It would be the same as taking a political poll of only people who go to private universities, and then claiming that it is representative of the population as a whole. It would just be inaccurate, even if the results (miraculously) somehow came out to be the same as if it had been a random sampling.

Now how would I do that? :confused: I need to fly from/to Paris. Orly has some flights, but the bulk is from CDG. Any technical suggestions of how to vote with my feet? I may chose my airline, but chosing the airport at origin or destination city is a bit difficult. And I won't be moving homes just because of the airport (I imagine the newspaper headlines: "Exodus of Paris residents to Singapore because of better airport").

Well that's a pity then isn't it? No need for the sarccy response was there? When I said 'vote with your feet' I didn't mean the royal you. Looks like you're just going to have to suck it up and live with it then eh?

Many, if not most people using CDG, like myself, are in transit and can absolutely 'vote with our feet'. If, of course we choose to do so.

CDG is absolutely not the reason I am not flying AF or KL so much anymore - those reasons are documented by plenty other people on here.

I personaly find that CDG2-C-E-F are convenient terminals. Moreover, they really have improved in the recent years (signage, Acces n°1 etc...).

2D is a nightmare. 2G is an unconvenient and remote wart and I do not frequent A&B anymore.

In my memory, Terminal 1 is, let's say, complicated !

To me CDG drawbacks are still ground agents, who can be either excellent or terrible, and cleanliness.


Now back to the survey :
Sure PP holders can transit through Terminal 2, but there is a possibility that they frequent more Terminal 1 since the PP lounge is here, and less Terminal 2. It is publicly known that 2 is better than 1. So I would tend to be cautious with such a survey.

I try to make my opinion as follows : if everyting goes right when arriving to an unknown place, from a long-haul flgt with jet lag and a short connection, I think it is a great airport.

ZRH is one of them. LHR is not. CDG is in-between.

Yes, the 2E transit hall lacks shops for the average person (there is more or less only high end goods boutiques such as Cartier etc), entertainment in general is non-existent (ok a few PS3 scattered around the hall) and no restaurants present other than the canteen type at each end (and the one to the left after security on the 2nd floor) and is by far over priced, but space wise I think it's brilliant.

I never find 2E too crowded (only in the lounge at certain times) and also find it easy to navigate round.

Please put an end to comments of a personal nature and keep the discussions in this forum courteous and friendly. Thanks for your understanding.

Jouy31
AF/KL co-moderator