the most ironic statement about CDG2 I've ever seen
 

this is taken from AirlinesGate; a site dedicated to the civil aviation buffs & those interested in airliners' pictures

http://airlinesgate.free.fr/cdg/cdg2.htm

well, I guess to the average frenchman starting or ending his trip from CDG this would be true. as for my experiences in CDG2 I find this statement extremely ironic!
I guess you could say it's quite ironic that CDG2 was never planned (airportwise) as a hub since it now is probablyy the biggest skyteam hub around.....

Well, connections are not ideal but their statement is true: there really is not much to walk from the front door to the boarding gate.

Correct. Drawbacks of success, I would say. Anyway, do you have much choice other than expanding existing terminals along an axis parallel to existing runways? What do you think of London Heathrow where aircrafts actually land between terminals :eek: , and the confusing dispatching of BA flights between terminals 1, 2, and 4?

Yesterday I had my longest walking experience at CDG: 2A (the most remote part of it, the small circular appendix to the 2A main building where usually CO aircrafts disembark) to 2F2 (UK, Japan, Canada, Brazil...). It took me about 15-20 minutes. Would the connection shuttle bus have been quicker? Not sure, if one has to include waiting times.

And, from a benchmark point of view, are 15 min walks a rarity at Schiphol and in major US airports?

Connecting from an transatlantic flight to a Schengen flight in Schiphol can easily be a 15-minute walk, or more. Its a very big airport. But it's much, much more user-friendly than CDG. And I have never once had to take a bus.

Shame about the airline though...

Please never compare Fabulicious Schiphol with CDG... :confused:

Let`s say you need to connect from OS to SQ at AMS, which means a walk from the B concourse to the G concourse you hardly need 15 minutes, at CDG you need 15 minutes at best to get a flight deplaned and half of the guys into the buses...

Considering its size the utilisation of finger gates is tremendous at Schiphol..., certainly not at all at CDG, LHR or FRA !!

Never ever let architects who need to prove themselves build hotels or even worse airport terminals, way too expensive ( DUS / CGN T 2 / MUC ) or simply inconvenient and not suitable as a hub.I tremendously appreciate the French view and passion for beautiful buildings, the Paris Metro area is a prime example, but they should have stayed away from CDG, true for T 1 and T 2.

Heads up for the set up of the TGV station, but beside that the airport leaves a lot to be desired, however as pointed out by Falco P. there were certainly physical limitations, also true for FRA or especially LHR.

In addition to that I think it is hardly worth it to compare airport with differents number of pax.Considering that ATL has to cope with 100 million, a vast majority connecting, it is a very nice hub and IMO way superior to ORD, the only airport to be in that size category.The fact that you stay within a secured area makes ATL the obvious winner ( time advantage while connecting is huge, ever transferred from NW domestic to KL interconti at ORD... ? )

I agree too.

The issue is that I do care about walk from the front door (of the airport) to the front door of the plane.

The long way in CDG2 is between the boarding gate and the plane.

Sometimes, the bus driver get confused, and run additional miles to find the plane.

15 minutes is certainly reasonable at IAD these days! the underground tunnel sucks.