I've stayed at an airport hotel for two years while on a consulting gig from monday-thursdays. It wasn't by choice, it was because the client had a negotiated rate with the airport. It was a nice hotel and all, but it is a bit tiring being so close to so many people who are in between the places they want to be.
This article wasn't clear what the person means by destination or why a business person would knowingly choose and airport hotel over a hotel right next to the client site.
I still think the main use case for airport hotel are travelers who miss a connection or flight and need a quick check in. Conferences and big groups might also be another use case because I'm sure airport hotels may give discounts for booking in advance since so many of their customers are people who check in last minute.
If the hotel is nice enough, would this be a good idea for weddings? No need for a bunch of people to get taxi's or rental cars to the destination?
I'm really not sure if the hotels need any other reason to build a hotel than to have an onsite location to house displaced passengers.
I once attended a wedding reception in a nice airport hotel. It was one of the nicer ones I attended, you could not hear the airport at all from the reception hall (which was, admittedly, in the basement), and valet parking was included if you stayed the night (I drove up, there was no direct flight so it did not make sense to fly, especially with the wedding proper being off-site).
I suppose that highlights the issue versus a wedding: many people want to attend the ceremony, too, and depending on your preferences that might not be doable at the hotel, at which point transport is required (though it could be a rented bus).
The economics ends up being pretty questionable. I recently wanted to stay at an airport hotel (well 5 min away from airport) for a last night of a vacation trip due to a 10 am flight next morning - but the cost was almost 25% more than comparable city hotel. End result was a wake up 30 min earlier and a 7euro shuttle bus ride, but also a last evening lazily spent at a great in-city restaurant.
Unless you are just connecting, the noise, the rush of frustrated travelers, and comparably high prices I've seen in this kind of places just don't provide that much of a value in my opinion.
All I can think of is how terrible it is to sleep in a hotel right next to a major airport thoroughfare. Unless these places will have some incredible soundproofing I think they'll just be a very fancy place to lie in bed, staring at the ceiling and listening to the plane engines.
The airport hotel I mentioned in another comment was almost eerie-quiet inside, and it was attached directly to a concourse. I expected when I woke up that they'd only started flights for the day or something since I hadn't heard anything (and had the blackout curtains closed) and was stunned to realize it was 10am.
Airport hotels typically have pretty good soundproofing. I've never had an issue with noise even staying at hotels that are literally connected to the terminals.
I am looking for a house next to an airport. Flights in EU are often cheaper than bus. And many conferences are happening because local city is Ryanair hub.
Buying a house is a long-time investment, and I don't think the situation with air travel will last - current prices are unsustainable. Make sure this location has other benefits that will still be there in 10 or 15 years.
I was recently trying to find out why Norwegian Airlines had flights from LAX <-> Sweden, Finland, or Norway for less than $400 and the best answer I could come up with was the improved fuel economy of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.
Let's take a 747-400, which (I think) could be used for such a flight. It takes up to 660 passengers, and every single one of them would have to pay $700 to just cover the fuel costs. That is, in 2008 fuel prices[0]. And you still have to pay the pilots, flight attendants, ground crews and somehow keep the lights on on the airport.
Tickets for normal travelers are ridiculously underpriced; the reason airlines stay alive is a combination of government subsidies, business tickets being much more expensive, and all those annoying ticket pricing schemes - from trying to trick you into buying insurance, through prices increasing when you refresh the site in your browser, to crazy rebooking fees, etc.
Fuel prices aren't going to go down in the long run, even only if because we will have to start dealing with climate change eventually; some politicians are bound to regain minimum of sanity at some point and price the issue into fuel. Meanwhile, air crews all over the world are going on strike because of low pay and cuts. At the same time, passengers want to fly more and for less. The era of cheap air travel is bound to end soon, and I doubt even Ryanair can invent many more annoying ways to make additional money on the side to compensate for the ticket price.
There's no way it would take $700/passenger for fuel to fly from LAX to Northern Europe.. Even if you do assume a 747-400.. Add an hour for a flight from LAX to London and you get ~12hrs flight time to get to Sweden or Denmark.
Some approx numbers:
1,000kg for taxi / rollout, 15,000kg to take off and get to cruising altitude, 10,000kg/hr average at altitude, another 5,000kg for landing/taxi..
You'd be looking at roughly 125,000kg of fuel burned for a flight of that distance. A gallon of Jet A weighs ~3.1kg which would correspond to roughly 40,000 gallons of fuel per flight. The average cost of Jet-A as paid by commercial airlines in 2015 is $2/gallon. [1]
In summary, it would cost about $80,000 in fuel for that flight, if you had a 90% full airliner of 600 people, the per-ticket fuel cost is only $133.
Wiki confirms the approximate numbers where they list the 747-400 at 72mi/us gallon/seat (only showing 415 seats on the airplane). A 5,500-mile flight from LAX to Sweden would then take 31,000 gallons of fuel, which again at $2 would cost $62,000 or $150/seat.
Around the areas I know in the UK demand around airports has just gone up and up. Still Ryanair hubs are uncertain as they are known to shut them and move occasionally if they can get a better deal.
which will not only include one, but two new Hyatt Hotels. Even though the complex is very much integrated into the airport I can't imagine that it will provide a secure area or direct access for cleared passangers.
I stayed at the Radisson Blu on the ZRH airport last year. Incredibly convenient for stupid-early flights and a 2 minute walk to the check-in area but I can't imagine staying there longer than one night.
From what I gather is that they want to really build something like a small city within the airport, which would be an attraction and people magnet in itself.
Plus there are building convention facilities, which may or may not fill the hotels.
A major problem that airport hotels will have in Zurich (including the Radisson Blu) is that the airport is a 10 minute train ride from the city center. Unless you have to be at the airport around 5am, or you are coming from a different city an airport hotel doesn't really make that much sense for ZRH. And even then a taxi from town will be significantly cheaper; even at Zurich taxi prices.
That's quite different from CDG, or LHR which are relatively far from the city center (and relatively badly connected in the example of Paris), plus the fact that they are huge.
So an airport hotel at those places certainly makes more sense.
$500M for a hotel-train-station complex seems like quite a bit, but the really shocking number at that link was $400M for a single new runway. What am I missing?
This isn't the first time airports have tried to do this; before the current era of only being able to get past security with a boarding pass, many airports tried to lure shoppers. Pittsburgh airport in particular emphasized their Airmall attraction, originally aimed at local shoppers.
Personally I don't worry about potential terrorism when I fly, but if I did then I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be worried by staying in a hotel outside airport security... why would that be more of a target than a hotel in a city center?
Yes I understood - my point is that I wouldn't feel safer past the TSA screeners.
If a terrorist gets a bomb (or weapon) past TSA, chances are he is going to attack a plane. If they wanted to attack a hotel why would they go to one inside or outside the airport, when there are so many easier targets inside cities that don't have armed military/police so close?
I feel like that would be a bit dangerous. Have you ever seen the YouTube channel Terminal Cornucopia? It would be quite easy to make improvised weapons with that much time and privacy.
Makes a lot of sense, you have easy access to customers whenever a flight gets cancelled and with enough soundproofing the experience could be good for everyone.
This article wasn't clear what the person means by destination or why a business person would knowingly choose and airport hotel over a hotel right next to the client site.
I still think the main use case for airport hotel are travelers who miss a connection or flight and need a quick check in. Conferences and big groups might also be another use case because I'm sure airport hotels may give discounts for booking in advance since so many of their customers are people who check in last minute.
If the hotel is nice enough, would this be a good idea for weddings? No need for a bunch of people to get taxi's or rental cars to the destination?
I'm really not sure if the hotels need any other reason to build a hotel than to have an onsite location to house displaced passengers.