The 10 Best Airports

[gougouluxembourg]

he world's top 25 rankings in the World Airport Awards for 2010:

1 Singapore

2 Seoul Incheon

3 Hong Kong

4 Munich

5 Kuala Lumpur

6 Zurich

7 Amsterdam

8 Beijing

9 Auckland

10 Bangkok

11 Vancouver

12 Kansai

13 Centrair Nagoya

14 Helsinki

15 Copenhagen

16 Frankfurt Main

17 Tokyo Narita

18 Brisbane

19 Cape Town

20 San Francisco

[tonititan]

When I read your subject line, I thought "What? The best 10 airports in Thailand and Suvarnabhumi ranked 10th?"

I don't hate Suvarnabhumi THAT much, but I'm still shocked that it made the list. Do you have a link to the rankings? Perhaps it explains the criteria.

[gougouluxembourg]

When I read your subject line, I thought "What? The best 10 airports in Thailand and Suvarnabhumi ranked 10th?"

I don't hate Suvarnabhumi THAT much, but I'm still shocked that it made the list. Do you have a link to the rankings? Perhaps it explains the criteria.

www.airlinequality.com/news/airportawards_2010.htm

Edited March 25, 2010 by gougouluxembourg

[gotlost]

What happen to CNX?

[bdenner]

For Brisbane to make the top 25 really shows the lack of creditability in the survey!

[tartempion]

Natashquan (YNA) is definitely missing from that list, my all time favorite airport

[prism]

I mostly agree with that list. BKK is a very good airport that has a few flaws. When the Rail link is finished, the airport might even move up a couple of notches. BKK sure beats any U.S airport, especially LAX.

[Jingthing]

Swampy makes a dramatic appearance when approaching. Other than that, it seems Bangkok made the list because it is a popular destination. Its a crummy airport.

[gougouluxembourg]

Swampy makes a dramatic appearance when approaching. Other than that, it seems Bangkok made the list because it is a popular destination. Its a crummy airport.

http://www.worldairportawards.com/main/methods.htm

[game4shame]

soo-wanna-poom is an awesome airport. no two ways about it.

ok, it had a few teething problems but so what?

I just don't understand why so many people moan about it.

[IMA_FARANG]

Well, I haven't been through all of them....but I definately agree on Singapore as number 1.

I haven't been through Souel/Inchon or the New Hong Kong airport....but I hear good things about them.

I'd move Amsterdam up above Kuala Lumpur...I'd rate Amsterdam as #5 instead of KL.

Went through Zurich once, and wasn't impressed...but maybe that was just due to the short time I was there (just transit) so I'll let it go.

Copenhagen....should definately be up higher...not lower than #10 at the most. I would definately prefer Copenhagen to Bangkok for a few hours stay. (Maybe the fact that you can't get free Beer in the business lounges at CPH due to Danish tax on Alchohol products hurt Copenhagen.)

My dislike for Bangkok (Swampy) is based on:

1) Too far to walk to get to the departure lounges (that d#mn arcade of useless/overpriced shops is in the way). I have problems with my legs, and I don't like walking that far...it hurts (I'm 65 years old).

2) Inside it looks like a warehouse (I don't like that steel girders and cables look anyhow).

3) Not enough d#mn chairs and what chairs there are are designed for short term seating only (hard metal).

So I wouldn't put swampy at #10....certainly not above Copenhagen or Amsterdam.

I admit though it does look impressive at nightime as you approach it...all lit up like it is.

Edited March 25, 2010 by IMA_FARANG

[canuckamuck]

It certainly isn't on the list of airports with catchy names though.

[Crushdepth]

KL, Beijing...Brisbane?!?. What a joke. If Beijing's on there, the price of a take away coffee obviously wasn't a consideration.

[webfact]

Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi Airport Named Among Top Ten

BANGKOK: -- Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi International Airport has been ranked the 10th in the 2010 World Airport Awards. The Skytrax World Airport Awards were announced at the first live ceremony in Brussels, Belgium, as part of Passenger Terminal Expo.

The top title as World's Best Airport went to Singapore's Changi Airport, named Airport of the Year 2010, Singapore's Changi Airport also took home awards for Best Airport Leisure Amenities and Best Airport Asia. Changi Airport reclaimed first place after being beaten by South Korea's Incheon International Airport last year.

Suvarnabhumi International Airport entered the top ten for the first time ever, moving up from 16th position in 2009. Organizers of the survey say “change and improvement is clearly coming through at a faster pace in Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi Airport.”

Joining the ranks of the top ten are South Korea's Incheon International Airport, which came in second this year. It is followed by the Hong Kong International Airport, Munich, Kuala Lumpur, Zurich, Amsterdam, Beijing, and Auckland. Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi International Airport comes in this year at tenth place.

-- Tan Network 2010-03-26

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[syd barrett]

#13 Centrair Nagoya should be higher up the list; a truly amazing airport.

I have no objections with Suvarnabhumi being at #10 because all the main U.K. airports are a total disgrace.

I was going through London Gatwick a few months back and the monorail that used to go from North to South Terminal has been replaced with a bus service. It took me one hour to transfer from South to North Terminal. Be warned!

[game4shame]

It certainly isn't on the list of airports with catchy names though.

correct. reminds me of a time before suvarnabhumi was open - I asked a taxi driver when the new airport would be open. I pronounced it as suh-var-nah-boom-ee and he didn't have a clue what I was talking about!!

[tw25rw]

I've had no problem with the airport. Some of the people working there need a kick up the arse, but I've found the facilities ok.

On the other hand, I've had enough postings on airlinequality either deleted, not posted or posted with inaccurate ratings to not trust the site.

[PhilHarries]

Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi Airport Named Among Top Ten

Since when has tenth been "among the top ten"?

Swampy would be a lot better if they cleared a lot of those shops and stalls away (it's an airport not a <deleted>' shopping mall) and if they then proceeded to finish it (it is not trendy to have utility pipes and cable trays exposed - that's the way we build oil & gas facilities).

KLIA is great for open spaces and a light interior, Incheon is fine as well, haven't been to Changi for a good fifteen years. But my favourite is Tan Son Nhat (HCMC) 'cos it's so small and near the city centre.

Personally I think JT is correct, it's not the airport so much as the destination.

Didn't see Ninoy Aquino on the list, I wonder why not?

[up-country_sinclair]

The interior is less than aesthetically pleasing, but IMHO it is fairly well laid out.

[syd barrett]

Didn't see Ninoy Aquino on the list, I wonder why not?

That airport is very bad indeed, which is puzzling because you would think they would come to learn it is bad and improve it to save face?

[TheWalkingMan]

I checked the website and here are a few quotes about Swampy...

5 out of 5 stars

Airport was excellent - clean and organised, check in very speedy. Customs also fast. Shopping is excellent, there is a lot to see. Minor criticism; does not appear to be public internet kiosks. Should be in place in this day and age.

4 out of 5 stars

Been to Suvarnabhumi for more than 10 times since they opened. Always loved to see the lotus shaped roof whenever the plane just landed. The Airport has improved considerably, the waiting lounge chairs are now upholstered no longer the 'grey' plastic look, toilets are plentiful and one of the difference is now the speed of the immigration. Normally, it takes more than 30 minutes to 1 hour to clear the immigration, the queue seems endless, but this time lots of counters are open, swift and efficient process, I was out on taxi with my baggage exactly 30 minutes after the plane touched down. Perhaps it is not a peak hour at 4 pm in the afternoon.

4 out of 5 stars (all complaints and still 4 stars?)

I have to admit that there have been visible changes at BKK airport but certain issues still remain. Signs and directions, a bit of a tree here and there to brighten up the cold interior, seats upholstered with colours at gates, sign informing where are the city taxis just as you exit the hall - all better. X-rays just after Passport control making it more time consuming and you end up in a large crowd, so be careful of your things and put your bags in the x-rays only when you see you are allowed to go through the metal detector, otherwise you will risk losing items and having the x-ray guards completely unwilling to help or assist. Duty free eating away on more space but I never shop there anyway - the prices are a joke. Long walks and I mean long - after landing from Europe, we walked (signs shows meters to passport control) 350m then all passengers detoured to a second hall with another 300m walk to the passport control - might not seem much but its quite a walk especially when people are lacking politeness to leave a quick lane on the travelator and you end up slower than actual walk. Passport control officers still rude and show no emotions - always a 30-45minutes till you pass. Baggage waiting for us when we get to the baggage belt. Not a bad airport but I guess worse is flying or leaving in rush hours (around 3pm and then 10pm) where most planes land and continue onwards, so give yourself ample time.

Here is the link

Enjoy the read.

TheWalkingMan

[phetaroi]

soo-wanna-poom is an awesome airport. no two ways about it.

ok, it had a few teething problems but so what?

I just don't understand why so many people moan about it.

I agree with you.

First, it's just a place to go into and out of. You're not living there.

Second, as another poster indicated, it's a heck of a lot better than almost any American airport I've gone into and out of -- Boston, JFK, Dulles, National, LAX, Phoenix, San Diego, or Orlando. I don't remember much about Tampa, although there was something I didn't prefer about it. Denver now is pretty good, although it was a mess when it first opened. To me, JFK and LAX are nightmares. Haven't done that much international travel (other than Thailand), but I certainly wasn't impressed with the older Jakarta or KL airports, and detest Narita.

Third, I don't understand this love affair so many seem to have with Don Muang. Don Muang was fine. Fairly efficient. Compact (although that was also part of its problem). The traffic for years was absolutely atrocious...something I don't experience with Suwannaphum. The walk from international to domestic was awful. And while the main section of the airport was relatively attractive, other areas were dingy and dark. The bathrooms were...smelly.

[neverdie]

For Brisbane to make the top 25 really shows the lack of creditability in the survey!

I don't understand why your coming down so hard on Brisbane International. Sure its a little bit small, wasnt built for far enough into the future but the facilities there are good, it easy to move about it in, clean and fairly efficient.......its a good little airport & certainly runs rings around that aweful Sydney International.

[PhilHarries]

I was going through London Gatwick a few months back and the monorail that used to go from North to South Terminal has been replaced with a bus service. It took me one hour to transfer from South to North Terminal. Be warned!

Syd, you're not comparing apples with apples when you put Suvarnabhumi alongside many othe world airports.

LHR and LGW are both very old airports and were in operation before Thailand existed (it was Siam back then ). The airports have gradually expanded over the last 60 or 70 years all the time being hemmed in by urban sprawl. Suvarnabhumi is a purpose built, green field (?) site, 21st century facility touted to become the Hub of S. E. Asian aviation. I'm sure The UK would build a similar airport if it only had a large expanse of swampy wasteland infested by snakes and inhabited by people who have few rights and mean nothing to the government.

But hold on a minute, I've just described Essex perfectly.

Factoid moment.

The name "Gatwick" dates back to 1241, the name of a manor on the site of today's airport until the 19th century that was originally owned by the De Gatwick family. It is derived from the Anglo-Saxon words gāt, 'goat', and wīc, 'dairy farm', i.e. 'goat farm'.

and

In 1936, the world's first circular airport terminal, called The Beehive, opened at Gatwick. It was designed by Frank Hoar and included a subway to Gatwick racecourse railway station that enabled passengers to travel from London Victoria Station to the aircraft without stepping outside. On 17 May 1936, the first scheduled flight to depart The Beehive was bound for Paris. The applicable air fare was £4 5s (a little over 200 Baht), including a first class rail ticket from London Victoria.

[prism]

soo-wanna-poom is an awesome airport. no two ways about it.

ok, it had a few teething problems but so what?

I just don't understand why so many people moan about it.

I agree with you.

First, it's just a place to go into and out of. You're not living there.

Second, as another poster indicated, it's a heck of a lot better than almost any American airport I've gone into and out of -- Boston, JFK, Dulles, National, LAX, Phoenix, San Diego, or Orlando. I don't remember much about Tampa, although there was something I didn't prefer about it. Denver now is pretty good, although it was a mess when it first opened. To me, JFK and LAX are nightmares. Haven't done that much international travel (other than Thailand), but I certainly wasn't impressed with the older Jakarta or KL airports, and detest Narita.

Third, I don't understand this love affair so many seem to have with Don Muang. Don Muang was fine. Fairly efficient. Compact (although that was also part of its problem). The traffic for years was absolutely atrocious...something I don't experience with Suwannaphum. The walk from international to domestic was awful. And while the main section of the airport was relatively attractive, other areas were dingy and dark. The bathrooms were...smelly.

My only real gripe I have with Swampy is the very awkward meeting area for arriving passengers. I have to fly through LAX a couple of times a year. Whenever I have to queue up (up to 2 hours sometimes) to have my bags screened after I already checked in and then proceed to wait up to another 30 minutes to go through security, swampy starts to look pretty good by comparison.

Edited March 27, 2010 by prism

[chimsa]

These so called surveys cannot really mean much. How can they arrive at these conclusions? I agree with Singapore though. Lovely place, especially on departure.

OK Let's consider the ten WORST airports in the World.

I nominate the self-styled World's busiest, that hel_l hole of a place called Heathrow. Dirty, ugly, busy, expensive, unfriendly. Need I add more. It is like being at a soccer game as far as crowding goes. Although, to be fair, I have not used the new terminal (5) but I have heard that it is something else. Think of it. Five terminals, all on a par size-wise, with Swampy.

Too busy for comfort.

Edited March 27, 2010 by chimsa

[phetaroi]

My only real gripe I have with Swampy is the very awkward meeting area for arriving passengers. I have to fly through LAX a couple of times a year. Whenever I have to queue up (up to 2 hours sometimes) to have my bags screened after I already checked in and then proceed to wait up to another 30 minutes to go through security, swampy starts to look pretty good by comparison.

Yes, I agree about the "meeting place". Very confusing. Last time I came in I was having so much trouble finding my party...only to discover they had forgotten which day I was coming in! But still for well over 30 minutes I wandered back and forth between two meeting places, hoping not to miss them.

[game4shame]

OK Let's consider the ten WORST airports in the World.

I nominate the self-styled World's busiest, that hel_l hole of a place called Heathrow. Dirty, ugly, busy, expensive, unfriendly. Need I add more. It is like being at a soccer game as far as crowding goes. Although, to be fair, I have not used the new terminal (5) but I have heard that it is something else. Think of it. Five terminals, all on a par size-wise, with Swampy.

I wouldn't go that far mate. LHR would be one hel_l of an airport if each of the 5 terminals were the size of soo-wanna-poom!!

[game4shame]

My only real gripe I have with Swampy is the very awkward meeting area for arriving passengers. I have to fly through LAX a couple of times a year. Whenever I have to queue up (up to 2 hours sometimes) to have my bags screened after I already checked in and then proceed to wait up to another 30 minutes to go through security, swampy starts to look pretty good by comparison.

Yes, I agree about the "meeting place". Very confusing. Last time I came in I was having so much trouble finding my party...only to discover they had forgotten which day I was coming in! But still for well over 30 minutes I wandered back and forth between two meeting places, hoping not to miss them.

I actually think it's easy to meet people in soo-wanna-poom - all the exit doors are numbered. eg I always meet at exit door 3.

[chimsa]

OK Let's consider the ten WORST airports in the World.

I nominate the self-styled World's busiest, that hel_l hole of a place called Heathrow. Dirty, ugly, busy, expensive, unfriendly. Need I add more. It is like being at a soccer game as far as crowding goes. Although, to be fair, I have not used the new terminal (5) but I have heard that it is something else. Think of it. Five terminals, all on a par size-wise, with Swampy.

I wouldn't go that far mate. LHR would be one hel_l of an airport if each of the 5 terminals were the size of soo-wanna-poom!!

Maybe yes. But none is much smaller and I know nothing about 5.

My real gripe was that the place is always so busy. Whatever terminal.