There's a great podcast called "How To F#€k Up An Airport" which details the many _many_ problems building a new airport in Berlin.

One of the funniest to me was that the architect didn't like the forced shopping path of modern airports. So he just didn't add any. And no-one noticed until after they'd built the foundations, so then they added a new floor, but it would be out of the way so who'd want to go there reducing income forecasts, while requiring new ventilation requirements, fire suppression systems etc.

If you work on poorly defined constantly changing software tasks it's all quite familiar. Just with a literal airport.

Was there recently. On the plus side, it's less objectionable than either of Berlin's previous airports, but it really is a bit of a weird mess.

It can get even worse, when the duty-free store has multiple entrances/exits; only one of them leads to the gates; and the paths between them are winding with a lot of stall and shelves and stands occluding the view. And at times you need to choose whether to turn right or left - and may end up cycling back to where you entered, on a different walking path, or to an exit which actually just leads to other check-in areas.

In Brazil as well.

What makes it double funny is the whole security theater around being unable to carry certain items during flight (due to risk of explosives, for example). A determined person would probably be able to craft some makeshift explosives with things one can buy at the taxfree shop.

I’m not convinced, but if you could write up some examples, I think it would make for interesting reading…

Alcohol [in eg hairspray], and a lighter?

A fireball would certainly be problematic, and fires are very bad for planes, but only when they are less controlled than in the passenger cabin.

You would be very unlikely to be able to create an explosive, since there's not a lot of chemistry supplies for sale, but it's trivial to build/buy a weapon to attempt to take over the plane, and the threat has been demonstrated at least once that I know of.

Like almost all airport security since 9/11, preventing people from bringing weapons onto a plane is almost meaningless. Sure, you could hurt and kill passengers and flight attendants, but you could do that kind of terrorism anywhere. It won't bring down the plane, and as long as the cockpit door stays closed you will never hijack the plane.

That has been the case with international flights for my entire life . . . I suspect longer.

I've been in airports where to get to gates you do not have to walk through the tax free shop, although you do have to walk by it. The Copenhagen airport you have to walk through it which is also irritating if

1. it is busy because a shop is not as well structured for walking through as a hallway is. The shop is structured for you to look at things and buy.

2. you have a child with ADHD or similar problems which has to be watched because they might break a big bottle of something on accident.

3. You have to navigate a wheelchair or a large pram through the area.

4. This shop is actually very big so there is a lot of tax free shelving to walk around to actually get out to the hallways that take you to the gates.

Yes, I was in Haneda terminal 3 yesterday and it doesn't force you through a shop: https://tokyo-haneda.com/en/floor/terminal3/3rd_floor.html

When you get through security/customs/etc you find yourself on a long wide corridor, which has all the gates on it, and also the entrances to the individual shops.

IKEA are actually the opposite of mazes. There’s one main path that when you follow it brings you to the end and the occasional shortcut, literally impossible to get lost.

It’s not a maze but it is a long path. Think of a traditional furniture shop or warehouse type store. You’ll usually be able to see all 4 outer walls and the store is arranged in a kind of grid where you can walk almost directly to what you want.

I don’t have any problem with the IKEA layout, the experience is almost part of what you are going for. But it is obviously designed to make you take longer paths to things.

You are right, but few people get it when I say "The Swedish Lombard Street"

London Stansted and Manchester (same owners) recently had "upgrades" where you have to walk along a street to get to the seating area and gates beyond.

That street is narrow, long and forces you to pass every single shop in the departures area. It's blatantly hostile design.

Kansas City airport (KCI) was replaced a few years ago. The previous design was three c-shaped terminals, each of which had a curb-to-plane distance that, before 9/11, meant coming or going was very fast. Arriving 15 minutes before takeoff was overkill. Time from deplaning to leaving the airport curb could be 2 minutes. People didn't pass more than one or two shops or restaurants, typically (sometimes none). Even after 9/11, despite public advice to arrive 2 hours in advance, it seemed that 1.5 hours or more was wasted just sitting next to the gate.

But for airlines, I seem to recall servicing KCI was expensive. I think more than once, various airlines left or threatened to leave due to the high fees, which affected ticket prices. Fees which could not be offset by charging vendors the typical enormous rental prices. The new security barriers prevented much of the already limited foot traffic.

DHS also didn't like the proximity to the curb, and threatened to close the airport. A new design was sought (and ended up being partly designed by a friend of mine), and so now the new one follows the typical pattern: funnel everybody into far-too-few security check points (always leaving some unmanned), then into a large concourse with lots of expensive ways to spend money.

Seems that people are more willing to pay airport markup while waiting, than to pay higher ticket prices.

Just saw a picture. What a marvel of efficiency, which of course means we cant have it since its a nice thing. Looking forward to my future missed flights.