With all these fast track lanes and priority this and that, which airlines pay extra for. Why don't airlines etc stop paying for the special treatment and just ask for a good service for everyone?

Currently the airports, AvSec, Customs, etc have figured out if they provide a crap service they can get the airlines to pay more for what should be the be the expected standard of service. That being the case there is no benefit for them to improve things, if anything the way it is set up they benefit from providing a a crap service. Look at the TSA who now have a number of programs for people and airlines to pay them more to get an option of a shorter queue.

They hold a monopoly position so there is no commercial driver to improve service. Maybe in cities served by two airports in a country where AvSec isn't a monopoly, you could get Airports competing on shorter queues to encourage pax to fly from that airport opposed to the other airport.

How did LAX escape being one of the worst in the world?

I've never had a remote gate in AKL but have regularly had it in LAX with NZ. While the Bradley International Terminal has nice features, the rest of the airport is a nightmare - whether it's getting from one terminal to another, going through security or waiting for hotel transportation.

I think the problem with the airport is lousy connections to the city. A taxi ride can cost as much as a domestic flight (from WLG). Like many, I enjoy the fresh air of the walk between the domestic and international terminals.
I do find the much vaunted NZ lounge quite crowded though.
Incoming immigration is normally OK (for a local)-not sure how it is if you can't use the Smartgates.
I have been to many worse airports and not that many much better.

The biggest problem at LAX is gates. I've now had 4/4 of my last flights to there (1 NZ and 3 UA) that have been meant parking up or taxiing around for between 30-45 mins due to the gate not being free.

Ain't that the truth! An airport like AKL should only need to use bus gates under really exceptional circumstances. AKL's management has consistently shown themselves to be very tightfisted when it comes to investing in future growth. Then again, it's probably been the right decision from an economic point of view - most people using AKL have very little in the way of alternative options, so the incentive to invest *ahead* of anticipated growth just isn't there.

I had entirely escaped bus gates at AKL until around this time last year, when transiting SYD-AKL-EZE. The bus gate was handled so ineptly that I was genuinely shocked - and it seemed that only one bus could offload passengers at at time. It took eons to get everyone off. As luck would have it we had a lengthy connection and it helped to kill some time, but AKL has a very tight MCT, which would have made for a highly stressful experience.

Now that AKL traffic has grown so much so quickly, I imagine bus gates at peak times are becoming an unpleasantly frequent occurrence. Does anyone have any stats on their usage?

In 2015/16 it was 5% of total passengers (so a higher % of international passengers). Will be much higher in current year given the high growth (over 12% last 6 months alone) in international passengers with no change in available gates.

And Jetstar using bus gates for the Q300

RE flying via Syd or the night before. I call that doing your homework and making the necessary adjustments which is what I do. Missing flights isn't fun.

TBH I don't think the bus drop is that far away. The slow disembarking is an inconvenience but the walk from the bus to immigration feels closer than some of the regular gates.

IIRC there are two bus arrival points - one on the new Pier B by gate 15 which is OK for immigration, and one on Pier A by 5/6.

APEC cards mean you are travelling a lot and have priority lanes on arrival at Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Honk Kong, China, Korea, Japan but NOT AKL........Thanks AKL:td:

Can't be justified in AKL - it's never busy enough and the Smartgates are a smooth process

AKL's international arrival process lets them down. My last international arrival took me over 60min from deplaning to exiting the terminal largely due to delays in MAF.

I've keenly observed the gate-to-exit times when I've gone to AKL to pick up friends etc and I've yet to meet anyone <60mins of arrival.

When I've had quicker gate-to-exit times at LAX of all airports it does make me question the efficiency of AKL's international arrival procedure from gate-to-exit...

Partly that comes down to New Zealand's overall arrival process, and when you get to AKL's size it simply doesn't work.

Surely the MPI process should be simplified, e.g. they could probably X-ray bags as they are being loaded on to the belt, then flag passengers to inspect at exit.

If you look at the likes of LHR or FRA when you simply just walk out after customs.

I've flown MEL-AKL with post midnight landings twice in the last fortnight. One was about 40 minutes to landslide and the other perhaps 45-50 minutes. Both times the smartgates have been a breeze and the delay has been waiting for luggage. The new bio security queues seem to be helping at that end although each time was probably 5-10 minutes.

How is continental Europe & the U.K. Comparable bio security wise with New Zealand?

Our isolation is a huge asset and the 'slow' MAF checks are a key part of preventing disease and pests getting into NZ, something which most other places don't have the luxury of, including LHR & FRA. Yes customs/MAF aren't the fastest, but I'd rather they extra time to get it right than just anyhow let people through.