scotcat

If I would have read this a year ago, I would not have believed any of it, and now I am writing it myself...

Is a CDG transfer not worse anymore than one in AMS?

My last return flight UK to Spain, out via CDG, back via AMS. In CDG, due to (voluntary) bump, needed to have hotel arranged, which was done just outside the gate at service centre, within minutes, very professional. Passport control in evening, and security in the morning a breeze due to Access no.1. Lounges not really worse than even Schengen lounge in AMS, and food possibly better now.

AMS security control, without long queues, took ages, belt off, still checked everything etc. And AMS does not have any priority security access (unless you pay for Privium). Last time I had to arrange a hotel took ages in the corner of luggage area (though I take it that we now have a new service centre, which I have not used).

Having said this, taxiing in CDG still often, even now with E open and 100 seater E90s, gives you a scenic ride twice round the airport by plane, then by bus, total time from touch-down to feet in terminal ca. 35 minutes, which beats the average Polderbaan by about 10 minutes.

Altogether though CDG I think is clearly getting better, and AMS worse. Is that possible?

bwilson831

No contest, in my opinion - AMS wins every time. Like you I'm transferring Schengen - Non Sechengen, and CDG is a farce. You mention all the good work they did when things went wrong, but for most of us things don't go that wrong and when they work, they work better in AMS.

Perhaps when they FINALLY sort out T2 in CDG things'll get better, but for now AMS wins for me every time.

CDG - crap signage, need to know what gate your connection is at to take the correct (of three) routes, few departure boards to help you find out, Gallic shrugs from staff (if you can find any), long queues at security

AMS - Excellent signage, more departure boards, helpful staff, fast track through security for tight connections, smoking in the KL lounge!

orbitmic

scotcat, I actually agree with you - my last two experiences in Amsterdam were a nightmare, including one missed flight and god knows i can run fast. By contrast, at CDG, things have now gone MUCH better since April if your lights allow you to stick to 2E/2F/S3, which now represents about 70% of flights or so. For instance, I managed a connection between flights from Singapore and to London in under 10 minutes even in busy early morning. If you need to go to 2A or 2B, it is still appalling.

JOUY31

Well, AF flights no longer use 2A or 2B. Airside transfers to 2C still need to be improved. Otherwise, transferring between AF flights in 2D, 2E, and 2F is now far better than just a few years ago.

orbitmic

Thanks for the precision - I actually wondered about that after sending off my message and was going to check, so thanks for saving me the trouble. I'm glad they don't btw, they were the worst part of CDG2...

tlr

I agree that things have been improving hugely in CDG in recent years -- e.g., doing a trasnfer from S3 to 2D is now easily possible within less than an hour.

Now, if they'd just stop losing luggage for just about any AF-LG connection that's less than 3h, that airport would actually become useful... So, for me, AMS wins hands down, for actually being able to take checked luggage along.

JOUY31

Err, I am currently on an LG-AF connection, enjoying the 2E lounge and sipping some Deutz. So, I'l just take some time for a prayer or two ...

jochen_vdk

For me as well, service at CDG has significantly improved over the last years and especially months. Queuing time has reduced a lot, as well as service at the Air France lounges (food, internet...). AMS stayed the same, is still favourable if you ask me, but due to my recent very bad experience with KLM and especially their customer service, I am flying a lot more AF now, avoiding KLM whenever possible.
So I would say CDG is catching up AMS but still has a long way to go. Contrary to airport service, the customer service of KL has decreased a lot compared to AF, resulting in me flying through CDG when possible.

cruisr

Due to a change in my cruise plans I just changed a connection thru AMS to a connection thru CDG. Glad to hear that CDG seems to be not quite the horror show it has been. The last time I transited was in 2005 and my inbound was late. As there were about 30 people doing the transit to Malaga we had a personal escort for all of of that was easy. Coming back and transiting back to the US was another story.

Hopefully it will not be too bad. I only have 1.40 mins connection time. Should be enough time for me to try to find the gate

bwilson831

Transit through CDG last weekend and may have an answer to the 'who uses Access No 1' question which keeps popping up. We were on a tight connection BHX-CDG-ZRH flying eco. Immigration queues were horrendous and Access No 1 line was empty. Woman on Access 1 was refusing 4 out of 5 pax. My boarding pass for CDG-ZRH didn't have my FB Gold status printed on it but I decided to take a shot anyway. Showed boarding passes (wife is FB Silver) along with my FB Gold card - she examined all three and said 'Ah yes, Gold Elite' and removed the rope )

Result!!

GenevaFlyer

Hi all,

Having transited through both during the past 12 months, let me put in my 2 cents ...

CDG has improved a lot in recent times. The bus from 2D to 2ES3 and from 2RS3 to 2F2 have helped a lot in improving the connection experience.

However, when it comes to the lounge experience, I still think that the cold salad in AMS beats the sandwiches at CDG.

One thing I will admit. For me, right now, AMS is an outside Schengen transit, whereas CDG is a domestic to outside Schengen transit. Once Switzerland joins Schengen, my opinion on transit may change a little. But, based on mx lounge experience, I would still prefer AMS.

Plane choice will be a driver in the end. A KL 330 is way above an AF 777 in Y. However, an AF 777 is way above a KL MD-11 (until such time as they finish the retrofit).

So, it all depends on your circumstances to determine which is best.

Cheers,

GenevaFlyer

dunk

This is from someone who knows Schiphol well and was dreading this morning ...

I connected thru CDG this morning - ex-LHR into 2F connecting to BOM from 2C with just 45 mins (gulp). We were met at the top of the airbridge and escorted all the way onto the bus and then to security at 2C. And not just J pax - it was everybody - around 10 of use with the same connex. It was like a teacher leading a group of school kids All done with 10 mins to spare ... I was very impressed - well done AF ^

And a very good crew CDG-BOM. I'm a seriously happy bunny with AF at the moment. Of course, it'll probably all go wrong on the return trip

bwilson831

I'm also happy with AF at the moment (see my post at http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...78#post9948678), but this doesn't mean CDG is better - just that AF is. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, but would your tight connection have worked if you'd been using another airline? Perhaps someone at AF has worked out that the way you compensate for a crap airport (and avoid all the knock-ons of missed connections) is by allocating resources to get around the airport inefficiencies?

Hats off to AF, but that doesn't mean that CDG works

dunk

I tend to agree. AF probably did this because they have to - and they can get more connecting traffic onto the longhauls by allowing shortish connections. In my example, it means both early flights from LHR can connect.

I did look around as we were chaperoned from 2F to 2C. I would probably have made it on my own, but I'm a pretty experienced and switched on traveller. Not sure a jetlagged, occasional traveller would have felt the same.

Schiphol should be easier every time.