The Incorrect Theory of Airports

I’ve spent a lot of time in airports. First for work, then for pleasure. 

Earlier this week, I was struck by how empty the shops at the Frankfurt Airport were. 

Not the news and book shops that also sell snacks and bottles of water. Nor the last-chance souvenir shops. 

Stores like Gant, Falke, Swarovski. High street brands. 

This isn’t some commentary on a decline in travel retail. They’re usually empty.

Because their leaders have been sold the incorrect theory of airports. 

An airport is a conduit, conveying travelers from one place to another. Not a destination.

But if an airport is judged by how good it facilitates transport from one place to another, it has to improve its infrastructure. In other words, it has to spend money. 

But if an airport is judged as a destination, then it can offer up some of its unused space to companies and brands that want to sell to the people that are going to that destination. In other words, it can make money.

There are some circumstances where this formula works, like luxury goods in international terminals. But the strategy has been sold far and wide, even in places where it doesn’t make any sense. 

Stores mostly don’t mind that they are paying for empty stores and bored staff because they can function as billboards, if nothing else, to the segment of the population that is wealthy enough to frequently travel. 

The trick is to understand an incorrect theory and resist the urge to build upon it.

Adding more retail will never improve an airport’s ability to transport travelers from one place to another. Executives can call their airport a destination all they want; that won’t stop me from racing out the doors as soon as I’ve picked up my luggage.