fbpx

Month: September 2019

Los aeropuertos más cómodos de Europa, dos en España

El Consumer Choice Center (Centro de Elección del Consumidor) analizó los 30 primeros aeropuertos europeos por volumen de pasajeros y los clasificó en términos de la satisfacción del viajero, según una combinación de factores que van desde su ubicación con respecto a la ciudad que sirven y las opciones de transporte hasta la experiencia dentro de las instalaciones y el acceso a la red de vuelos o conectividad aérea, seleccionando el Top 10 de infraestructuras más friendly o acogedoras para el pasajero, encabezado por el Aeropuerto de Bruselas-Zaventem, y el Top cinco de aeropuertos que destacan en aspectos relevantes para la comodidad del usuario. Dos aeropuertos españoles aparecen en tres de los rankings.

El Top 10 de las instalaciones más amigables con los pasajeros está principalmente dominado por aeropuertos del norte de Europa. Madrid-Barajas es el único aeropuerto del sur de Europa entre los diez mejor clasificados, en el 4º puesto, mientras que no entró ningún aeropuerto de Europa del Este, quizás porque entre los 30 principales de Europa en términos de número de pasajeros se encuentran tres de Moscú, según explican los analistas del Center Choice.

Los tres aeropuertos mejor clasificados, Bruselas, Zúrich y Düsseldorf, gestionan entre 25 y 32 millones de pasajeros al año, un tercio del tráfico de los aeropuertos más grandes de Europa por número de pasajeros, Londres Heathrow con más de 80 millones de pasajeros y París Charles De Gaulle, con más de 72 millones. Ninguno de ellos llegó al Top 10.

Después del aeropuerto madrileño, siguen los aeropuertos de Copenhagen, Amsterdam-Schiphol, Estocolmo-Arlanda y, empatados en el 9º puesto los dos alemanes con más tráfico de pasajeros, Fankfurt y Munich.

Experiencia del pasajero
El Consumer Choice Center elaboró además el Top 5 de aeropuertos que destacan en aspectos relevantes para la comodidad y experiencia del pasajero.

Uno de estos ranking se refiere al uso de pasarelas para embarcar el avión (finger o jet bridge), permitiendo a los pasajeros abordar un avión directamente desde la terminal y es medido por el número de pasajeros anuales por finger. En este ranking liderado por el Aeropuerto de Bruselas destaca el Aeropuerto de Madrid-Barajas en segunda posición, seguido por los aeropuertos de Zurich, Munich y Estambul.

Otro aspecto relevante considerado fue la proximidad de los aeropuertos al centro de las ciudades a las que sirven, liderado por un empate a tres entre Dublin, Lisboa y Düsseldorf con sus 7 kilómetros de distancia a sus respectivas ciudades, y en el que el Aeropuerto de Palma de Mallorca empata con el de Copenhagen por sus 8 kilómetros de distacia al centro de la capital balear.

También se determinaron los Top 5 por salones VIP más visitados, en el que encabezó la lista Londres-Heathrow, y por restauración y tiendas, liderado por Zurich…

Originally published here

España tiene un sólo aeropuerto entre los más cómodos de Europa

El Consumer Choice Center -Centro de Elección del Consumidor-, ha analizado los principales aeropuertos europeos por volumen de pasajeros, para determinar cuáles de ellos alcanzan los más altos estándares de satisfacción para los viajeros, llegando a conclusiones interesantes para España y el continente.

Considerando parámetros como por ejemplo su ubicación respecto de las ciudades en las que se hallan, como la atención al público o las opciones de transporte allí disponibles, se ha clasificado entonces a estos centros aéreos, indicando que sólo un aeropuerto español está entre los mejores de Europa.

En su top 10 de infraestructuras más friendly o acogedoras para el pasajero, aparecen en los primeros lugares entonces los de Bruselas, Zúrich y Düsseldorf, mientras que tras ellos podemos ver al representante nacional, Madrid-Barajas, en una cuarta y meritoria ubicación. Tras la capital española nos encontramos luego con Copenhagen, Amsterdam-Schiphol, Estocolmo-Arlanda, Frankfurt y Munich.

Una de las primeras cuestiones que podemos tener en cuenta es que los tres aeropuertos mejor clasificados gestionan un número de pasajeros muy menor al de los aeropuertos más concurridos del continente, así que este factor podría jugarle en contra a otros como los de Londres-Heathrow y París-Charles De Gaulle.

Esta primera edición anual del Índice Europeo de Aeropuertos del Consumidor intentará, a partir de ahora, brindar datos interesantes para los pasajeros que cruzan Europa por el aire, con datos respecto de las mejores conexiones, comodidades, y muchos otros aspectos a considerar en estos casos.

Justamente a partir de este tipo de estudios es que Barajas trabaja en la ampliación de algunas de sus instalaciones, buscando la excelencia que le permita competir con algunos de los aeropuertos del norte del continente, que suelen ser los mejor vistos por los usuarios.

Originally published here

La classifica europea dei migliori aeroporti Italia grande assente

Bruxelles, Zurigo e Düsseldorf. Questo il terzetto che conquista i vertici della prima edizione dell’European Consumer Airport Index, la classifica degli scali europei migliori per l’esperienza, le infrastrutture e i servizi che sanno offrire ai loro passeggeri.

Il ranking, elaborato da Consumer Choice Center, è stato stilato prendendo in esame i 30 aeroporti più grandi d’Europa in base al volume dei passeggeri ed è la sintesi di un mix di fattori che vanno dall’esperienza dei viaggiatori alle opzioni di trasporto.

Top ten senza Italia
Tre i dati che saltano subito agli occhi: il primo, impossibile da non notare, è la mancanza dell’Italia nella top ten, ma è evidente anche come il monopolio dei migliori servizi sia appannaggio degli scali del Nord Europa (solo uno del Sud del continente, quello di Madrid, è presente in classifica al quarto posto), mentre il terzo punto è l’assenza dei grandi aeroporti. I tre scali meglio posizionati hanno tutti, infatti, tra i 25 e i 32 milioni di passeggeri l’anno, un terzo delle dimensioni di realtà quali Londra Heathrow e Parigi Charles De Gaulle. Né l’uno, né l’altro, però, sono entrati nella top ten; tra i cinque maggiori scali europei, poi, solo Amsterdam e Francoforte figurano in classifica.

A Malpensa l’argento per lo shopping
Tornando alla classifica, dopo il quarto posto di Madrid il quinto è occupato dal Manchester Airport, cui seguono quelli di Copenaghen, Amsterdam, Stoccolma, Francoforte e Monaco di Baviera. Italia grande assente, dunque? Non proprio. Se andiamo a spulciare le classifiche parziali notiamo come, infatti, Milano Malpensa spunti in seconda posizione nel ranking degli scali in base ai ristoranti e alla shopping experience. Nella top five per questa categoria compaiono anche, in ordine di posizione, lo scalo di Monaco, quello di Parigi Orly e, tra i grandi, solo quello di Amsterdam Schiphol.

Originally published here

Copenhagen Airport ranked among best in the world

Nordic flight hub named fifth best based on eight airport-related parameters 

Executives at Copenhagen Airport are most likely popping some serious champagne corks these days thanks to the airport being on a serious roll over the last few days.

Late last month, the airport was ranked number six in Europe for passenger-friendliness by Consumer Choice Center, and today it has been ranked among the best airports in the world by luggage storage provider Stasher.

Originally published here

Opinion: Have we reached peak lawsuit?

Another day, another bogus lawsuit.

That seems to be the trend in today’s frantic fever to adjudicate every aspect of our lives. It’s gone much beyond the famous $3 million McDonald’s “hot coffee” lawsuit of the 1990s.

We see this with the landmark $572 million opioid lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson in Oklahoma, boiling down all the complexities of a multi-faceted crisis to the workings of one big bad company in a single court case.

This, even though the company’s pharmaceutical subsidiary only sold two opioid drugs for a period of a decade and it represented just 1 percent of the entire U.S. opioid market. The lawyers hired by the attorney general of Oklahoma will net a handsome $90 million as a result of this suit. The rest of the money will be allocated to the state of Oklahoma for education, addiction centers and the general budget, without much oversight. Something is rotten in the state of Oklahoma.

Though the Food & Drug Administration shares in the blame for the opioid crisis, owing to its 1995 endorsement of opioids for “chronic pain” when the science only supported short-term use, the issue is simply too complex to relegate to a single trial.

In California, a recent jury trial on glyphosate, the herbicide in Round-up, gives us a similar example.

Dozens of international environmental agencies, hundreds of studies and millions more farmers have attested that glyphosate is both safe and not carcinogenic, including our own Environmental Protection Agency.

But in July, the jury returned a verdict against Bayer subsidiary Monsanto, ordering the company to pay $86.7 million to a couple who claimed the herbicide contributed to their case of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. That’s drastically reduced from the $2 billion the trial attorneys sought, but will still net them a good payday and spawn hundreds of similar lawsuits.

Again, this is relegating science to the courts of justice. And consumers will be the ones to pay. No doubt, the power of the courts is a mighty one, and intended to provide justice to those who have been wronged.

But have we been led astray?

Known as tort law, this part of our legal system was originally designed to punish bad behavior and “civil wrongs.” Today, thousands of law firms exist solely to pursue large torts against corporations that would rather pay out moderate sums than face the burden of unpredictable trials. These costs end up raising the costs for both consumers and taxpayers, as more resources must be used in litigating the concerns and helping pay for the exorbitant levels of purported damage.

In the Chicago area, one group estimated that tort abuse brought by bogus lawsuits resulted in a cost of $3.8 billion to the city and county last year alone.

It’s no wonder tort lawyers are some of the biggest advertisers in the nation.

Across the United States, television commercials and highway billboards taken out by tort law firms implore consumers to “call now “ to “cash in” on the major settlement that is set to pay out huge winnings.

The conditions for joining the lawsuit are general if not spurious. Have you been in a bad car wreck involving a Toyota Camry? Did you use baby powder in the years between 1980 and 1995?

Many lawsuits arise because of “pricing discrepancies” (prices rounded to 99 cents rather than the dollar) as witnessed by the dozens of Amazon or Banana Republic settlements you may have seen in your inbox. These lawsuits are filed with the intention of getting big paydays for the attorneys who conjure them up, not civil justice.

It’s no wonder that firms, once they achieve a certain size, are forced to raise prices to push back against these many frivolous suits.

These lawsuits end up costing consumers dearly. And it shouldn’t be that way.

That’s why we need legal reform in our country. By capping the payments from these exorbitant lawsuits, actually defining who can be a defendant, and bringing legitimate science into the courtroom, this can be achieved.

Yes, bad actors must be punished. But we cannot continue to allow bogus lawsuits launched by dubious lawyers looking more for a payday than actual justice. We, as both consumers and citizens, deserve better.

Read more here

Opinion: Have we reached peak lawsuit?

Another day, another bogus lawsuit.

That seems to be the trend in today’s frantic fever to adjudicate every aspect of our lives. It’s gone much beyond the famous $3 million McDonald’s “hot coffee” lawsuit of the 1990s.

We see this with the landmark $572 million opioid lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson in Oklahoma, boiling down all the complexities of a multi-faceted crisis to the workings of one big bad company in a single court case.

This, even though the company’s pharmaceutical subsidiary only sold two opioid drugs for a period of a decade and it represented just 1 percent of the entire U.S. opioid market. The lawyers hired by the attorney general of Oklahoma will net a handsome $90 million as a result of this suit. The rest of the money will be allocated to the state of Oklahoma for education, addiction centers and the general budget, without much oversight. Something is rotten in the state of Oklahoma.

Though the Food & Drug Administration shares in the blame for the opioid crisis, owing to its 1995 endorsement of opioids for “chronic pain” when the science only supported short-term use, the issue is simply too complex to relegate to a single trial.

In California, a recent jury trial on glyphosate, the herbicide in Round-up, gives us a similar example.

Dozens of international environmental agencies, hundreds of studies and millions more farmers have attested that glyphosate is both safe and not carcinogenic, including our own Environmental Protection Agency.

But in July, the jury returned a verdict against Bayer subsidiary Monsanto, ordering the company to pay $86.7 million to a couple who claimed the herbicide contributed to their case of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. That’s drastically reduced from the $2 billion the trial attorneys sought, but will still net them a good payday and spawn hundreds of similar lawsuits.

Again, this is relegating science to the courts of justice. And consumers will be the ones to pay. No doubt, the power of the courts is a mighty one, and intended to provide justice to those who have been wronged.

But have we been led astray?

Known as tort law, this part of our legal system was originally designed to punish bad behavior and “civil wrongs.” Today, thousands of law firms exist solely to pursue large torts against corporations that would rather pay out moderate sums than face the burden of unpredictable trials. These costs end up raising the costs for both consumers and taxpayers, as more resources must be used in litigating the concerns and helping pay for the exorbitant levels of purported damage.

In the Chicago area, one group estimated that tort abuse brought by bogus lawsuits resulted in a cost of $3.8 billion to the city and county last year alone.

It’s no wonder tort lawyers are some of the biggest advertisers in the nation.

Across the United States, television commercials and highway billboards taken out by tort law firms implore consumers to “call now “ to “cash in” on the major settlement that is set to pay out huge winnings.

The conditions for joining the lawsuit are general if not spurious. Have you been in a bad car wreck involving a Toyota Camry? Did you use baby powder in the years between 1980 and 1995?

Many lawsuits arise because of “pricing discrepancies” (prices rounded to 99 cents rather than the dollar) as witnessed by the dozens of Amazon or Banana Republic settlements you may have seen in your inbox. These lawsuits are filed with the intention of getting big paydays for the attorneys who conjure them up, not civil justice.

It’s no wonder that firms, once they achieve a certain size, are forced to raise prices to push back against these many frivolous suits.

These lawsuits end up costing consumers dearly. And it shouldn’t be that way.

That’s why we need legal reform in our country. By capping the payments from these exorbitant lawsuits, actually defining who can be a defendant, and bringing legitimate science into the courtroom, this can be achieved.

Yes, bad actors must be punished. But we cannot continue to allow bogus lawsuits launched by dubious lawyers looking more for a payday than actual justice. We, as both consumers and citizens, deserve better.

Originally published here

Inside Sources Logo

Have We Reached Peak Lawsuit?

Another day, another bogus lawsuit.

That seems to be the trend in today’s frantic fever to adjudicate every aspect of our lives. It’s gone much beyond the famous $3 million McDonald’s “hot coffee” lawsuit of the 1990s.

We see this with the landmark $572 million opioid lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson in Oklahoma, boiling down all the complexities of a multi-faceted crisis to the workings of one big bad company in a single court case.

This, even though the company’s pharmaceutical subsidiary only sold two opioid drugs for a period of a decade and it represented just 1 percent of the entire U.S. opioid market. The lawyers hired by the attorney general of Oklahoma will net a handsome $90 million as a result of this suit. The rest of the money will be allocated to the state of Oklahoma for education, addiction centers and the general budget, without much oversight. Something is rotten in the state of Oklahoma.

Though the Food & Drug Administration shares in the blame for the opioid crisis, owing to its 1995 endorsement of opioids for “chronic pain” when the science only supported short-term use, the issue is simply too complex to relegate to a single trial.

In California, a recent jury trial on glyphosate, the herbicide in Round-up, gives us a similar example.

Dozens of international environmental agencies, hundreds of studies and millions more farmers have attested that glyphosate is both safe and not carcinogenic, including our own Environmental Protection Agency.

But in July, the jury returned a verdict against Bayer subsidiary Monsanto, ordering the company to pay $86.7 million to a couple who claimed the herbicide contributed to their case of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. That’s drastically reduced from the $2 billion the trial attorneys sought, but will still net them a good payday and spawn hundreds of similar lawsuits.

Again, this is relegating science to the courts of justice. And consumers will be the ones to pay. No doubt, the power of the courts is a mighty one, and intended to provide justice to those who have been wronged.

But have we been led astray?

Known as tort law, this part of our legal system was originally designed to punish bad behavior and “civil wrongs.” Today, thousands of law firms exist solely to pursue large torts against corporations that would rather pay out moderate sums than face the burden of unpredictable trials. These costs end up raising the costs for both consumers and taxpayers, as more resources must be used in litigating the concerns and helping pay for the exorbitant levels of purported damage.

In the Chicago area, one group estimated that tort abuse brought by bogus lawsuits resulted in a cost of $3.8 billion to the city and county last year alone.

It’s no wonder tort lawyers are some of the biggest advertisers in the nation.

Across the United States, television commercials and highway billboards taken out by tort law firms implore consumers to “call now “ to “cash in” on the major settlement that is set to pay out huge winnings.

The conditions for joining the lawsuit are general if not spurious. Have you been in a bad car wreck involving a Toyota Camry? Did you use baby powder in the years between 1980 and 1995?

Many lawsuits arise because of “pricing discrepancies” (prices rounded to 99 cents rather than the dollar) as witnessed by the dozens of Amazon or Banana Republic settlements you may have seen in your inbox. These lawsuits are filed with the intention of getting big paydays for the attorneys who conjure them up, not civil justice.

It’s no wonder that firms, once they achieve a certain size, are forced to raise prices to push back against these many frivolous suits.

These lawsuits end up costing consumers dearly. And it shouldn’t be that way.

That’s why we need legal reform in our country. By capping the payments from these exorbitant lawsuits, actually defining who can be a defendant, and bringing legitimate science into the courtroom, this can be achieved.

Yes, bad actors must be punished. But we cannot continue to allow bogus lawsuits launched by dubious lawyers looking more for a payday than actual justice. We, as both consumers and citizens, deserve better.

Originally published here

Paris absent du classement des aéroports les plus accueillants en Europe

Par quel aéroport européen est-il le plus agréable de transiter ? Bien qu’Orly se hisse au quatrième rang des aéroports proposant le plus de magasins et restaurants par voyageur, les aéroports parisiens ne figurent pas dans le top 10 des aérogares les plus accueillantes du Vieux Continent établi récemment par l’organisme international Consumer Choice Center (CCC).

Dans son European Airport Index, l’organisme attribue une note à chaque aéroport européen en fonction de ses équipements, de sa facilité d’accès, du nombre de lignes et compagnies proposées, de sa ponctualité, du nombre de salles d’attente et, bien entendu, de l’offre commerciale. Et ce sont les aéroports de Bruxelles, Zurich et Düsseldorf qui arrivent en tête du classement. Ils devancent ainsi les aéroports Adolfo Suarez de Madrid, de Manchester, de Copenhague, d’Amsterdam Schiphol et de Stockholm Arlanda. Francfort am Main et Munich se partagent de leur côté la neuvième place, avec un score identique.

« Des points ont été attribués aux aéroports qui offraient d’excellentes destinations dans le monde entier, mais aussi un mélange sain de boutiques, de restaurants et de commodités que l’on trouve à l’aéroport », indique le Consumer Choice Center. L’organisme de défense des consommateurs a ainsi établi un classement mettant en balance le nombre de boutiques et restaurants avec le nombre de voyageurs des aéroports.

Top 10 des aéroports européens les plus accueillants – CCC

Et il ressort que c’est Zurich qui s’en tire le mieux avec 171 897 voyageurs par boutique (et point de restauration) dans l’aérogare. L’aéroport Suarez de Madrid arrive non loin derrière avec 177 881 passagers par boutique, puis l’aéroport de Munich avec 192 723 personnes. L’aéroport Paris Orly s’installe pour sa part au quatrième rang (207 004). Une bonne nouvelle pour l’aérogare parisienne historiquement très décriée, et qui devance ainsi Amsterdam Schiphol.

« Le classement des sites les plus accueillants montre principalement des aéroports d’Europe du Nord », relève le CCC, pointant que seule la métropole de Madrid vient faire exception au top 10, où aucune aérogare d’Europe de l’Est n’est pour l’heure parvenue à se hisser, du fait de la massive offre de Moscou en termes de hub aéroportuaire. « Les trois aéroports les mieux notés voient chaque année passer entre 25 et 32 millions de passagers, mais mesurent à peine le tiers des plus gros aéroports européens que sont Heathrow à Londres et Charles de Gaulle à Paris, note par ailleurs CCC. Aucun des deux n’a réussi à être présent dans les 10 premiers de notre classement. »

Top 5 des aéroports européens proposant le plus de commerces et restaurants par passager. – CCC

Le travel retail européen générerait chaque année près de 20 milliards d’euros. A l’échelle mondiale, il est prévu que ce marché atteigne les 115 milliards d’euros à horizon 2023, selon Allied Market Research. Une perspective qui pousse les gestionnaires à moderniser progressivement les aérogares en tenant compte d’une activité commerciale croissante, poussée par une nouvelle population de voyageurs amenée par les vols low cost. La proximité stratégique avec les surfaces commerciales classiques est telle que les aéroports, à l’instar des grands promoteurs de centres commerciaux, apportent depuis deux ans un soin particulier au renforcement des offres de fooding, avec différents niveaux de gamme de restauration.

Une évolution de l’offre à laquelle n’échappe pas Paris Aéroport (ADP), qui a inauguré au printemps un nouveau terminal, Orly 3, porteur de ses ambitions pour ses quatorze terminaux parisiens. Un morcellement géographique des points de passage qui distingue Paris des autres grands aéroports européens. Et qui a l’avantage de limiter la longueur du parcours des clients, bien que cela nécessite d’aménager une standardisation de l’offre commerciale de terminal en terminal, comme nous l’expliquait récemment la directrice retail du groupe ADP, Aude Ferrand.

Originally published here


CCC statement on the impact of 5G on regulation

The adoption of the Internet of Things and the highly anticipated rollout of very fast 5G networks raise a number of concerns. As a consumer advocacy group, the Consumer Choice Center believes that the issues of consumer privacy and data security haven’t been emphasised enough to date. The key interests of consumers include not only low prices and quick adoption of valuable new technologies but also privacy and data security. Therefore, we are convinced that privacy and security should be prioritised over other issue areas and should be addressed in an urgent yet smart and consumer-friendly fashion.

National governments’ desire to field next-generation 5G networks is being tempered by their growing concern over the security pitfalls created by the overreliance and dominance of untrustworthy vendors in the supply chain for 5G technology. The importance of a secure 5G is evident as governments across the European Union are currently undertaking comprehensive assessments of their exposure and risk to security vulnerabilities in the supply chain.  

Some manufacturers and software developers tend to be mostly concerned about low prices and those aspects of their products that consumers immediately appreciate. However, they should be reminded that consumers also have strong interests in privacy and data security. We believe that there is a need for a smart policy response, that would incentivise market players to give sufficient weight to consumer data security but also achieve that goal without undue market distortions and limiting of consumer choice. In our recent policy note, we laid out some of the possible policy solutions.

While potential threats to national security are serious, pursuing a strategy of brinkmanship risks elevating geopolitical concerns at the expense of an opportunity to enact comprehensive standards for 5G. National governments and industry must reinforce their commitments to the principles that gave consumers a thriving global technology sector in the first place: open markets and choice for ICT products and services. Safeguarding consumer privacy and security requires a coordinated framework to facilitate vendor diversity.

Since consumer privacy and data security are highly significant, it is essential that the consultation process adopts a consumer-focused approach. The Consumer Choice Center has been successful in leveraging the expertise of our distinguished research fellows to develop and promote policy solutions to safeguard consumer interests in cyberspace. We would be delighted to contribute to the ongoing debate around the adoption of 5G to ensure the interests of consumers are not left behind.

About the Consumer Choice Center (CCC): 
The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, consumer goods, and health & science.

Los aeropuertos más cómodos de Europa, dos en España

El Consumer Choice Center (Centro de Elección del Consumidor) analizó los 30 primeros aeropuertos europeos por volumen de pasajeros y los clasificó en términos de la satisfacción del viajero, según una combinación de factores que van desde su ubicación con respecto a la ciudad que sirven y las opciones de transporte hasta la experiencia dentro de las instalaciones y el acceso a la red de vuelos o conectividad aérea, seleccionando el Top 10 de infraestructuras más friendly o acogedoras para el pasajero, encabezado por el Aeropuerto de Bruselas-Zaventem, y el Top cinco de aeropuertos que destacan en aspectos relevantes para la comodidad del usuario. Dos aeropuertos españoles aparecen en tres de los rankings.

El Top 10 de las instalaciones más amigables con los pasajeros está principalmente dominado por aeropuertos del norte de Europa. Madrid-Barajas es el único aeropuerto del sur de Europa entre los diez mejor clasificados, en el 4º puesto, mientras que no entró ningún aeropuerto de Europa del Este, quizás porque entre los 30 principales de Europa en términos de número de pasajeros se encuentran tres de Moscú, según explican los analistas del Center Choice.

Los tres aeropuertos mejor clasificados, Bruselas, Zúrich y Düsseldorf, gestionan entre 25 y 32 millones de pasajeros al año, un tercio del tráfico de los aeropuertos más grandes de Europa por número de pasajeros, Londres Heathrow con más de 80 millones de pasajeros y París Charles De Gaulle, con más de 72 millones. Ninguno de ellos llegó al Top 10.

Los más friendly.

Después del aeropuerto madrileño, siguen los aeropuertos de Copenhagen, Amsterdam-Schiphol, Estocolmo-Arlanda y, empatados en el 9º puesto los dos alemanes con más tráfico de pasajeros, Fankfurt y Munich.

Experiencia del pasajero

El Consumer Choice Center elaboró además el Top 5 de aeropuertos que destacan en aspectos relevantes para la comodidad y experiencia del pasajero.

Uno de estos ranking se refiere al uso de pasarelas para embarcar el avión (finger o jet bridge), permitiendo a los pasajeros abordar un avión directamente desde la terminal y es medido por el número de pasajeros anuales por finger. En este ranking liderado por el Aeropuerto de Bruselas destaca el Aeropuerto de Madrid-Barajas en segunda posición, seguido por los aeropuertos de Zurich, Munich y Estambul.

Utilización de finger.

Otro aspecto relevante considerado fue la proximidad de los aeropuertos al centro de las ciudades a las que sirven, liderado por un empate a tres entre Dublin, Lisboa y Düsseldorf con sus 7 kilómetros de distancia a sus respectivas ciudades, y en el que el Aeropuerto de Palma de Mallorca empata con el de Copenhagen por sus 8 kilómetros de distacia al centro de la capital balear.

También se determinaron los Top 5 por salones VIP más visitados, en el que encabezó la lista Londres-Heathrow, y por restauración y tiendas, liderado por Zurich.

Por proximidad al centro de la ciudad.

Beneficios para el pasajero

Las largas colas y el estrés antes de coger un vuelo aún continúa marcando la experiencia del pasajero en el aeropuerto y, más aún, si es durante la temporada de verano. Precisamente muchos aeropuertos están trabajando e invirtiendo en sus instalaciones, personal y tecnología para mejorar la experiencia del ususario, redoblando esfuerzos en los picos de tráfico en temporada alta, de forma que no efecte negativamente al viajero.

Entre los principales beneficos que ofrecen los 10 más acogedores:

● Comenzar un viaje en uno de los 10 principales aeropuertos promete un viaje más conveniente al aeropuerto y una experiencia de pasajeros buena a excelente en el aeropuerto.

● Si necesita conectarse en Europa, es más probable que los hubs en el norte de Europa proporcionen una conexión más conveniente que los del sur.

● El tamaño de un aeropuerto no necesariamente significa más conveniencia y mejor infraestructura. Amsterdam y Frankfurt, solo dos de los cinco aeropuertos más grandes de Europa, forman parte de los diez aeropuertos más convenientes en este ranking.

Esta es la primera edición anual del Índice Europeo de Aeropuertos del Consumidor, que busca clasificar los aeropuertos más amigables para los pasajeros de Europa. Explican que los datos para su elaboración provienen de los 30 principales aeropuertos de Europa y otras fuentes como sus informes anuales, estadísticas online y a través de indagaciones propias.

El índice general de amigabilidad con el pasajero incluye los indicadores mencionados y agrega los enlaces ferroviarios directos desde el aeropuerto, disponibilidad de servicios de transporte, competencia de aerolíneas, hoteles en el sitio, número de destinos, número de aerolíneas y conveniencia en el cambio de terminales, entre otros.

Read more here


Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN