|
|
|
|
|
|
by peteretep
2687 days ago
|
|
|
> despite being inconveniently far from the respective city Perhaps, but not in this specific case, where DMK is no further than BKK. I'd have some sympathy for someone trying to get to London and ending up anywhere other than LHR, LCY, or maaaybe LGW. "London Oxford Airport" and "London Ashford Airport" are particularly egregious. |
|
|
But back when maps were on paper and travel agents used for the most trivial of trips, the airport names played a significant role in (mis)informing the traveler.
Ages ago when my elderly parents traveled to San Francisco to visit me, they had AAA book the flight and hotel without checking anything. They expected to land in San Francisco and stay at a nearby hotel with convenient access to the city.
SFO International is in Millbrae, quite a ways south of San Francisco proper. The nearby hotels are in an isolated pocket of industrial space on Old Bayshore Hwy, with no conveniently accessible public transportation unless you like walking on highway overpasses.
It does seem like a useful "lesson" to learn; that airports are often named after the nearest major city. Chicago Rockford International Airport is 85 miles from Chicago, but four miles from Rockford. Yet Chicago is the first city mentioned in its title.