Gulliver | Nothing gastro by the gate

There are good reasons why airport food is so bad

By B.R.

A NEW ranking of restaurants in American airports has been released by the makers of AirportXP, a market-research smartphone app. Based on the responses of around 88,000 of its users, it found that Honolulu is the worst airport in the country for a pre-flight meal, followed by Washington Reagan and Los Angeles. Tampa, Salt Lake City and Minneapolis St. Paul, meanwhile, came top.

According to Scott Ludwigsen, an executive at AirportXP, air travellers “are very discerning when it comes to the choices they have in food and beverage”. Those are not the words Gulliver would use. Things are improving, but being voted the best airport for food is still a bit like being voted the least-fatuous Kardashian: you only look good in comparison with your flaky peers. No one would choose an airport restaurant over its equivalent in the real world.

There are many reasons why airport dining is so terrible. For a start, there is rarely enough competition. In the terminal, a small number of establishments vie for a large, captive clientele. That is a sure-fire way to ensure poor quality and high prices, particularly as flyers do not choose alternative airports just because they have better food. And restaurants do not rely on repeat trade—at least not to the extent that a local eatery does—so there is even less incentive to offer high levels of service. But even if the food were delicious and the waiting staff attentive, the experience would be still intrinsically miserable. For a start there is the lack of space. It is difficult to hive off an area in a cramped terminal and make it beautiful. (This paucity of space also extends to kitchens, limiting the speed at which meals can be prepared and the choice that can be offered.) It is harder still to insulate it from the bustle of the passing hordes or the screech of the tannoys. Many of the diners around you will be both harried and hurried. Such a combination will never make for a nice dining experience.

There are exceptions. In Changi in Singapore, for example, where they have a lot of space, the choices are endless and the food is often excellent. And you might think that, as more big chains set up in terminals around the world, the incentive to get things right would increase—after all, these are places we might consider patronising on the outside. Maybe. But airports can do funny things to even the most established brands. On a recent trip back from Russia, I was sitting at the bar of a well-known American chain for a pre-flight stiffener. I fancied a whisky and ice and eyed several bottles on the shelf. Out of the question, the server insisted, I must choose something off the drinks menu and whisky and ice is not on it. Back in the real world I would have walked off and found somewhere that was prepared to sell me what I wanted. But, alas, in this airport there was no choice. On the menu I spotted a whisky and Coke. “I'll have one of those, but hold the Coke,” I said. Certainly, she said, and very nearly smiled.

Discover more

How much will Hong Kong's protests damage visitor numbers?

Tourism is a surprisingly resilient industry—but only if governments want it to be

Why Hong Kong’s airport was a good target for protesters

The streets of 19th-century Paris and the postmodern architecture of Hong Kong’s main terminal have much in common


Why trains are not always as green as they seem

The “flight-shame” movement encourages travellers to go by train instead of plane. But not all rail lines are environmentally friendly