US airports are like 1970s football stadiums. Just there for one function. Its an antiquated model.
There has to be a new business model to keep up with the times.
Get in, get out facility. Its like most downtown of major cities.
But its a vicious cycle really. If the airport isn't profitable or made more commercial then the experience & services are poor -- lack of staff/long queues, old facilities, dirty etc. So you get in, get out
If the authorities make it more of a better experience for both the visitors and the passengers, they may stay longer and spend more money at the restaurants, shops etc which will allow the airport authorities to keep the place well run -- like upgrades at the gates with better design flow etc. All to maximise the space used beyond shipping passengers in & out of the facility.
Its like any place that goes beyond its basic function -- modern football stadiums all have other facilities to maximise both the fan experience and the floor space. Airports ought to be the same. Or no different to a mobile phone when it goes beyond just the talking/chat/communication function.
The longer you can keep the passenger/football fan in the facility then the more money you can extract from the customer. Then there is money to ensure that experience is optimal.
Finally, airports are generally the 1st impression you have of the city. Crap airport, the chances are that you have a poor impression of how the city is run. Bad for investors.
Sorry what, the idea of "get in, get out" at an airport is outdated?
I find this whole attitude really odd. To be clear, I'm not from and have never lived in the US, but I have been to many different states (and by extension, cities) within the US and have experienced both larger and smaller airports.
In Europe there is often more to do because you are travelling international and therefore have to be at the airport earlier (for example in the UK travel companies always recommended to be at the airport 3 hours before the flight for flights leaving Europe and 2 hours for flights within Europe) and most people seem to follow such guidelines, even though it's not really necessary. As such there needs to be things to do as there as people feel they have to be at the airport for hours before the flight.
In my experience of travelling between cities in the US, there is far less need to get to the airport early. I believe the TSA still recommend arriving early but most people seem not to. As such you don't want to be wading through shop after bar after shop after fast-food outlet etc, just get to your gate and travel.
And once you've arrived at the destination I don't know anyone who ever does anything than grab their bag, maybe use the toilet, and immediately leaves the airport.
Like I take your point about basic functions, but for me I want the airport to be a basic function. If anything I want to spend less time there, not more.
Why would I wanna hang out at an airport though if not just to catch a plane asap? One big difference is the security approach between European and American airports. Typically vendors only exist in the secure area. In Europe it often feels like there is an entire mall before security even. The way revenues and fees are collected are also vastly different. Regardless either sides of the ocean have great (i.e. DEN, DTW, ZRH and FRA) and shit airports (i.e. LHR, CDG, LAX and LGA)
It depends on the airport in Europe to be fair. Most of the transatlantic flights are obviously into much bigger airports. If you're flying within Europe there are plenty of much smaller airports that seem more like a big bus station than an airport, in the UK for example you've got Teeside, Bournemouth and even Bristol, and smaller airports I've used in Europe over the past 12 months or so would include Santander, San Sebastian and Reus, all Spain to be fair but that's where United have played. Even Bergamo is a very small airport given the amount of traffic that passes through it.
