Quoting tortugamon (Reply 58): Actually, take China and India, add them together and multiple it times two and that puts you in the ballpark of the US domestic network.

*Bows* My apologies, it's been at least 7 years since Ive had anythign to do with China I just forgot almost everything of what little I knew about it.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 63): That is so true. I never forget seeing a TSA agent at LAX yelling & screaming at a young couple with a baby. The TSA agent was freaked out when they had a small tube of diaper ointment in their bag. The TSA agent was holding up the tube screaming; "WHAT IS THIS?!?!?! EXPLAIN THIS PAL! ! ! Even though the tube clearly said 'diaper ointment' and the mother was holding a little baby. Another case was when flying out of JFK on JetBlue. The final leg of my trip around the world was through JFK. I had lost my driver's license in Istanbul, Turkey several weeks before. I only had my passport as ID. The TSA agent asked me; "What is this?"

Good lord...he didnt know what a PASSPORT was?! Ugh...Thank you Obama, for hiring pedophiles and high school dropouts...

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 64): Or are you seriously trying to tell me that you think a flight attendant's job is to do the safety briefing, sit by the emergency exit for take-off, then hide in the galley with a magazine for hours until sitting by the exit for landing again?

Some do!

Quoting travelin man (Reply 81): - At CDG: Got to Terminal 2 to catch my flight over 2 1/2 hours early only to be met with a security line that was 2 hours long. I almost missed my flight. - At FRA: Possible the worst airport to connect in -- Connecting from BCN to LAX; almost missed my flight due to the distance and lines involved in connecting

I now try to avoid CDG whenever I can, and FRA, well...only if I have to be in Frankfurt itself.

Quoting travelin man (Reply 81): - At YVR: Possibly the rudest immigration agent ever encountered (even worse than most TSA guys).

Good grief...

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 91): I don't understand the endless excuses on why USA airports can't handle a few international transit passengers. A little effort could and would go a very long, and create jobs/$ for businesses and tax revenues. Here are three things that could help right away:

Would you like to fork over the $$ to begin the process?

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 91): 3. Courtesy classes for all TSA/CBP personal and better disciplinary process for punishing poor performers. Protecting the country and being professional/polite to ordinary travelers while doing so is an achievable goal

Courtesy and TSA in the same sentence...I'll be damned. Again, anyone want to fork over the $$ to pay for such classes?

[Edited 2013-05-17 14:06:00]

Quoting dfambro (Reply 98): Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 88): I try to avoid JFK, but it is not always possible coming from Iceland. By the way, have you connected through Iceland, or just O&D there? I connected there once. No customs issues, but my gate was right off a hallway, no chairs in sight, so we had a planeful of connecting passengers standing & sitting around a hallway for a hour in the middle of the night. It was a lousy experience and I went right back to more expensive connections through elsewhere for my Boston-Stockholm trips.

I of course do not transfer in KEF. But after check in and security check I stay in the same areas as a transfer passenger.
Schengen without passport controll in the main departure lounge. UK somewhere near gate 8,9 and 10 with passport controll directly before those gates and on the way to the USA in the area of gates 25 to 35 after passport controll.

As you talk about at night, I asume you were flying from BOS to ARN via KEF.
When you come from BOS to KEF and want to go on to ARN you have to go through immigration and than you are in the main area of the airport. If you are flying Saga class you turn left and have 2 two minutes walk to the saga class lounge, you turn right and if you walk very slowly you reach after 5 min, pasing gates 1 to 6, the main departure lounge with chairs, restaurants and shops.
Usually you fly to ARN from those gates 1 to 6. I have to agree there are few chairs in front of those gates, but as they are right beside the main departure lounge you can sit there until the boarding call.
If the ARN flight leaves from gate 7 to 15, it is a 5 minutes walk to those gates and there are chairs in that area.

If you com from ARN and have to wait for a longer time, there is again the saga lounge and the main departure lounge.
As you have to go through passport control on the way to the USA, you pass trough that not later than 45 min before departure and wait the rest of the time in the area of gate 25 to 35 with in my opinion enough chars, a cafeteria some shops and restrooms waiting for the boarding call.

for your information a map:
http://www.kefairport.is/resources/map-en-2009/vefkort_eng.html

Quoting workhorse (Reply 23):

The issue is privatization and safety. SU might have nice meals but they crash their planes quite often.

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 5):

We are dealing with, in no particular order:
1. Heavier demand for air travel =more flights=more congestion.
2. An air traffic control system that is playing catch up to the demands of 21st. Century aviation.
3. A reflection of our nation, neglected infra-structure in many areas on land and in the air.
4. Government regulations and snafu's (need I say more)
5. And not to cry wha wha but with such a vast sized nation we are victims to some severe adverse weather. Especially in some of
the most populated metropolitan centers. And each year the weather seems to get worse. Go figure!

However the silver lining to this cloud an excellent safety record Thank God!

[Edited 2013-05-17 18:26:38]

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 100): Good lord...he didnt know what a PASSPORT was?! Ugh...Thank you Obama, for hiring pedophiles and high school dropouts...

My only guess was that she didn't understand why I was using a passport for a domestic flight.
Still no excuse to ask what it was.
As far as standards go, I have no idea what the standard is. I know the Customs agents have to go through a police academy like regular police officers. Not sure about TSA agents.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 104): My only guess was that she didn't understand why I was using a passport for a domestic flight. Still no excuse to ask what it was. As far as standards go, I have no idea what the standard is. I know the Customs agents have to go through a police academy like regular police officers. Not sure about TSA agents.

Jesus Jones, I travel exclusively with my passport, thats insane!

But flying SU and trasferring in Moscow without a visa is no problem at all. In Russia! Of all places, done FRU through SVO to CDG and it was easy as anything. If Russia can do TWOV then why can't the USA. And the cited 18% transiting at JFK/LAX. Can you imagine Home Depot or Walmart treating 1/5 of its customers like dirt? Maybe we should consider privitizing our airports.

Does the new TBIT at LAX even have provisions for a proper transit area should someday in the future the USA gets our act together?

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 98): the visa hassle is only part of the problem. The actual entry experience isn't particularly enjoyable either, at least not for foreigners

True, the airport experience isn't great. But it pales to nothing in comparison to the visa application process. People for VW countries don't appreciate just how lucky they are!

The bureaucrat nightmare that is applying for a US visa is unbelievable. Sure, I understand that they don't want to let undesirables in. But the paperwork requirements are mindblowing, and what's more they are written in ways that I can only assume were designed to discourage as many people as possible from applying. I'd been planning moving to America for several years, and at one point I almost tore up the forms and said eff it, it can't be worth this more aggravation. Once I submitted all the forms, I then had to fly to another city (at my own expense) for an interview. The craziest part of this, though, is that I live in Canberra: the capital city. Anyone who has seen the US Embassy in Canberra can attest to the fact that it is MASSIVE, easily the largest embassy in the city by quite a margin. Yet they can't process visa applications there!

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 99): if your entry form says "in transit to X," there's generally much less aggressive questioning

That's what I would have thought, but when I flew LHR-MIA-UIO the women shouts at me, in a very aggressive tone, "Why are you going to Ecuador". "Who are you going with". "How long are you going for".

To be fair though, this possibly limited to the USA. My mother flew SYD-YVR-YYZ-RDU and was interrogated about why she was going to the USA. (This was Canadian immigration at YVR, not pre-clearance at YYZ)

Quoting Superfly (Reply 104): My only guess was that she didn't understand why I was using a passport for a domestic flight.

I've had my Australian driving license rejected before. A TSA agent in SFO peered at it with a look a disdain from every conceivable angle, with a growing sneer on her face. After a long time she goes: "This isn't a US issued ID". No sh*t. That's why it says AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY in bold capital letters across the top.

That said, I particularly pleasant chap in MIA was very suspicious of my NC license. He stared at it for a very long time, and then tried to get his finger nail under the laminate on the front. I guess he thought it was fake, but all hell would have broken loose (both towards both the TSA and NCDMV) had it been rejected.

A quick comment about US ATC that a few have slagged. While just about every business and institution can be faulted for something/s, many people on here seem not to be aware just how much of a political football government agencies are. They are often held hostage to members of congress that are only out to protect their political ambitions (and not to truly serve the country). Case in point, congress will NOT allow several ATC centers to be consolidated due to NextGen because of the job losses in their districts. This has happened a few times costing the FAA millions in redundant facilities and equipment while not being able to realize the benefits of the investments made.

What a rant thread this has become.

I fly out of JFK everyday. T1, T4, T5, T7, T8 are all world class facilities that can go toe to toe with any other airport in the world.

Perhaps you don't like a big city, crowded airport. That also happens to be the #1 (#2 if you throw it up against a nation-Israel) terrorist wet dream in the world.

We have long lines for a reason: We have 50 million tourists visiting the city per year, 16 million people in the tri-state area and we also have MUCH NEEDED security in place for foreigners visiting our city and country. If you are a US citizen, you go through rather quickly.

As for visas, in transit visas, and entry for foreigners....it was all clamped down for good reason. We had guys here on student visas that really bit us in the behind. Remember: I want to learn how to fly...not takeoff and land?

It is a sad reality, but we CAN NOT be loose with our borders again. Sadly, all foreigners are effected.

Much like non-passengers in sterile areas, the desire for transit passengers evaporated post 9/11. It is just an extra layer of hassle that we don't need to deal with. As you can see by several events mentioned in this long thread, most terrorist plots involve a foreigner on an international flight coming to or leaving the United States.

Shoe Bomber on AA
Diaper Bomber on DL
Times Square attempted bomber on Emirates
Attempted Liquid bombers LHR->US on various airlines


We have a hard enough time keeping things in check as it is. Do we need to add another layer of complication by allowing transit without visa passengers? Why...so Iberia can have a mini hub in Miami? Not worth it!

Transit Greenland or Iceland or Moscow or Dubai or wherever my fellow a.netters proclaim the worlds best airports and most welcoming customs officials are.

Shop in the beautiful shops of the Virgin Atlantic Heathrow Terminal just like I did on a 90F day! You know the ones around that central holding pen that all London airports make you sit in? Hot, steamy, smelly, and ripe...I was brought to a reality show combination of a modern day Noahs Arc meets Ellis Island. I was dreaming about the air conditioning in the crappy airports of the good old US of A.

When you want to see the Empire State Building or catch a game at Wrigley or descend the Grand Canyon, you will "suffer" through the 1 hour line and post a trip report on a.net. We'll leave the air conditioning on for you!

Quoting mayor (Reply 82): Quoting kevi747 (Reply 59): (And why, in Gods name, do they all have firearms strapped to their hips?!? Seriously?!?) It's called "security"..... and the U.S. isn't alone in this.

It has NOTHING to do with security. It is total overkill. And the police-izing of these people has led to them to treat all arriving US citizens and visitors to the US as "suspects" who are herded into ridiculously long, slow moving lines and treated like cattle.

Their job should be to ensure the traveller has the right to be in the country and then to ensure they're not carrying contraband. Not to humiliate/intimidate, scream at, and belittle someone who gets confused, or forgets to sign a form, or dares to take out their cell phone to look at a text. Really?!?   

I have witnessed customs officers in MIA, LAX, and JFK literally SCREAMING at passengers who got lost or were confused and started walking the wrong way. Those poor people were so scared and confused (not everyone speaks English or Spanish), it's horrible the way they get treated.

But they are a troop of girls scouts compared to the pit of evil vipers that we have stationed in Canada to do pre-clearnce for US bound flights. They are literally a legalized gang of hoodlums who take great pleasure in seeing who can be the cruelest to travelers. And there is absolutely no recourse other than not to return to this country, which is what this whole thread is about.

And it pisses me off because Americans are, for the most part, a very friendly and welcoming people. Why do we allow these socially retarded Neanderthals to stand guard at our international airports?

Quoting mayor (Reply 82): I can remember at least two instances, pre 9/11............one was arriving in FRA and as we were going thru immigration, a police officer was coming the other way with an armload of UZIs, to hand them out to other officers, coming on shift.

Those were police officers, not customs or immigration officers....not at all what Im talking about. There, obviously should be armed police protecting airline terminals worldwide. Passport/visa verifiers and baggage inspectors don't need to be armed....and aren't in most other countries.

Quoting mayor (Reply 82): The other instance was in Vienna, where the police, patrolling the concourse, looked like they were equipped to be on SEAL Team #6.

Key word: Police.

How's this for a nightmare scenario: If it was so important for federal officers to be armed, then why aren't TSA officers (who are handling people directly off the street) issued firearms? Surely they are more likely to need them than people processing passengers (who have ALL BEEN SCREENED for weapons) arriving from outside the country. Hmmmmm???  

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9): I agree that taxes are too high in many European countries, but the mega hubs are financed out of their own strenght, that goes for CDG as well as LHR or FRA. We just go through a 7 billion e plus expansion program which is handled without a single tax e, instead tha places are generating taxes in the billions.

I would support this scheme for the US - including airports, FAA, TSA, etc. All those entities must get off the taxpayer budgets and learn to earn themselves - through passenger, airline, overflight fees, retail, warehousing, etc. Then there won't be any kinds of FAA furloughs. Instead, they just cut the funding and restored it shortly. In this situation, the Congress should have said that all of them getting off taxpayers and gradually go on their own. If some of them still need subsidies (such as remote airfields in Alaska), then they need to be cross-subsidized from revenue generated by heavily traveled routes such as NYC-LAX. This is similar to the way it's done in Canada.

Yes, airfares will go up, but the US isn't exactly in the financial state where it can afford to continue trying to please everyone. Flying public probably won't be happy, but fixing major problems will inevitably require some sacrifices from everyone.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10): Exactly. There is no way that all infrastructure could be privatized, but the US needs to privatize more infrastructure projects and not just airports either. Being able to wipe some expensive projects off the budget is a good thing.

It does not necessarily needs to be privatized. Just not financed from taxpayer's money, and given freedom to operate as a private enterprise earning revenue or breaking even.

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 100): Good lord...he didnt know what a PASSPORT was?! Ugh...Thank you Obama, for hiring pedophiles and high school dropouts...

The bulk of TSA's hiring was under Dubya, not Obama.   

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 100): Quoting flyingalex (Reply 64): Or are you seriously trying to tell me that you think a flight attendant's job is to do the safety briefing, sit by the emergency exit for take-off, then hide in the galley with a magazine for hours until sitting by the exit for landing again? Some do!

I know. And it's disgraceful. As I said in the post you quoted, these FAs should be honest to themselves and go find a different job, because clearly they're in the wrong one.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 109): What a rant thread this has become. I fly out of JFK everyday. T1, T4, T5, T7, T8 are all world class facilities that can go toe to toe with any other airport in the world. Perhaps you don't like a big city, crowded airport. That also happens to be the #1 (#2 if you throw it up against a nation-Israel) terrorist wet dream in the world. We have long lines for a reason: We have 50 million tourists visiting the city per year, 16 million people in the tri-state area and we also have MUCH NEEDED security in place for foreigners visiting our city and country. If you are a US citizen, you go through rather quickly. .. rant rant rant When you want to see the Empire State Building or catch a game at Wrigley or descend the Grand Canyon, you will "suffer" through the 1 hour line and post a trip report on a.net. We'll leave the air conditioning on for you!

The problem is that security in the US is an absolute joke! First, the bulk of the incidents were the responsibility of people legally residing in the US. You want to add security and are worried about scary foreigners, then have proper transit zones like the rest of the world. At least those who are not supposed to enter the US will depart without leaving the security zone and ever stepping a foot in the country. Same is for leaving the US: there is no immigration counter, no proper passport check, no stamp in the passport when I have left etc. For a non-american, these are just absolute basics.

If you fly domestic in the US, and depart from one of the smaller airports, it is quite Ok. Depart from one of the bigger airports and you are stuffed.
Arrive from other countries and the US immigration and customs is just like that of a third world banana republic in a Sylvester Stallone B-grade movie. With the difference that you have to go through it and there is no fast forward button like there is for a direct to DVD release.

Quoting timpdx (Reply 106): But flying SU and trasferring in Moscow without a visa is no problem at all. In Russia! Of all places, done FRU through SVO to CDG and it was easy as anything. If Russia can do TWOV then why can't the USA.

I had a transit in DME and it was paradise compared with a transit in LAX. My american VP thought it was the worst transit he had ever seen and he did never fly through DME again. He had never try to transit as a foreigner in the US because then he would understand how it really is to be treated as a criminal for just wanting to get from one plane to another.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 109): What a rant thread this has become.

by you US citizen.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 109): We have long lines for a reason: We have 50 million tourists visiting the city per year, 16 million people in the tri-state area and we also have MUCH NEEDED security in place for foreigners visiting our city and country. If you are a US citizen, you go through rather quickly.

Exactly piss on tourists, to hell with foreigners, than start crying if a US citizen has to wait for an hour in line somewhere in the world.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 109): As for visas, in transit visas, and entry for foreigners....it was all clamped down for good reason. We had guys here on student visas that really bit us in the behind. Remember: I want to learn how to fly...not takeoff and land?

If you can tell me one think what a visa less international to international transfer has to do with a student visa?

But regarding students, your universities earning big money on international students, it is a business.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 109): I want to learn how to fly...not takeoff and land?

Remember? Earning money from international students? Why did the flying school not report them?

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 109): It is a sad reality, but we CAN NOT be loose with our borders again. Sadly, all foreigners are effected.

A visa less transfer does not cross your borders, that is exactly the point.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 109): As you can see by several events mentioned in this long thread, most terrorist plots involve a foreigner on an international flight coming to or leaving the United States.

The worst events involved foreign terrorists on your domestic flights.
In good American way you than clamped down on international flights.

Do you remember why the visa waiver program was started in the US? Because of making life easier for bloody foreigners?
No it was to facilitate travel of US citizen in Europe.

After the second world war US Citizen could travel all of western Europe without visa. But the US did not do the same for western Europeans, a very uncommon situation, the rule in the world is, if my guys need a visa in your country your guys need a visa in my country.
The French, at that time the only western European with balls, got pissed they took of visa less travel for US citizen to France.
Than traveling US citizen complained how bad the French were treating them not understanding the world.
Other European governments were voicing agreement.

That is the start of the visa waiver program, if it is agreed upon it plays both ways.

I would now vote for installing special lines for US citizen at the immigration in European airports, under staff them so the US citizen have to wait at least 2 hours for passing immigration.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 114): I would now vote for installing special lines for US citizen at the immigration in European airports, under staff them so the US citizen have to wait at least 2 hours for passing immigration.

Understand your frustration, but we are trying to lift US performance, not lower the rest of the World.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 102): The issue is privatization and safety. SU might have nice meals but they crash their planes quite often.

How often is often? Last time an SU plane crashed was 19 years ago.

What was the start of lenghty procedures on immigration was actually the innovation called "Visa Waiver program", which was some time in the 90s. I had a multiple entry, indefinately visa for the US which allowed me to travel at my leisure as often as i wanted to and from the US, I had that since the 70s. The waiver program started long be fore 9/11.

I still remember thze first visit after the waiver prgram became effective and that was when I entered at EWR and the officer cancelled my life long visa and really apologized to me for having to do that.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 114): I would now vote for installing special lines for US citizen at the immigration in European airports,

well, you cannot single out a nation for that. I wish our immigration officers would really enforce the "EU" and "non EU" lines. Not only here at FRA i see too often that non EU citizens queue up at the EU line and the officers never send them back to "their" line. The only place where this is really enforced in Europe is the UK.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 117): Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 114): I would now vote for installing special lines for US citizen at the immigration in European airports, well, you cannot single out a nation for that.

Perhaps the only way, the disgruntled travelers from the US would than talk to there congressman.

Even better, take the business travelers, not the tourist, let them fill out big forms, make them so complicated that everybody makes a mistake, scream at them and send them back to the end of the line to fill out a new form.
Do not allow any fast line for US citizen traveling business or first class.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 109):

If I read how this guy is reveling how good and proper it is to let international travelers jump through hoops, a little payback would be the only way to get those folks down on the ground again.
Do not do to me what you do not want to be done to you.

In all fairness Europe has a right to secure its borders anyway it likes.

I've been to Europe 5 times...if I had to wait 2 hrs each time...I'd still go.

Its not a tit for tat thing...its securing the borders.

And as you can see be the bombings just last month in Boston...we have threats from outside and within the US.

We need the security

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 117): The only place where this is really enforced in Europe is the UK.

I actually agree with this. What's more, I've been on the receiving end of this. I'm a British citizen, and have a British passport. Nonetheless, on the basis I have no intention of living in the UK or anywhere else in the EU, I often only travel with my Australian passport. When I've accidentally joined the EU line out of habit, I have always been put in my proper place as a non-EU citizen.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 114): I would now vote for installing special lines for US citizen at the immigration in European airports, under staff them so the US citizen have to wait at least 2 hours for passing immigration.

Mjoelinir, I understand your frustration, I really do, having been on the receiving end of this cr** but let's not punish an entire nation of innocent individual's for the incompetence of their government.

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 64): Sorry, but that is pathetic. Any flight attendant who believes this needs to retire immediately.

You honestly think that? A good chunk of airlines would dump flight attendants like a hot potato if they weren't required by law. The ULCC would be first to do it, not a doubt in my mind. Do they offer other services, yes and it is welcome, but their number 1 job is safety, not to look good.

-DiamondFlyer

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 122): Mjoelinir, I understand your frustration, I really do, having been on the receiving end of this cr** but let's not punish an entire nation of innocent individual's for the incompetence of their government.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 122): Mjoelinir, I understand your frustration, I really do, having been on the receiving end of this cr** but let's not punish an entire nation of innocent individual's for the incompetence of their government.

There is even a worse point with US customs and border protection.

I am are traveling mostly for business reasons, we sell equipment for the fishing industry. Sometimes you have complaints about your machines, so I travel with my overall, boots, measuring equipment and some special tools all over the world, never a problem and there are some strange countries on the list.
Than you get to the customs in the US (and the Canadian customs has been learning this tricks).
The solution of course is to keep a set in the USA and another in Canada and move it to the place I am expected.
I call this a non tariff trade hindrance.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 124): I call this a non tariff trade hindrance.

So do I.

But punishing American tourists that want to visit Buck Pal and Checkpoint Charlie isn't the answer. If anything, we are stooping to their levels by doing so.

[Edited 2013-05-18 06:59:23]

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 121): I've been to Europe 5 times...if I had to wait 2 hrs each time...I'd still go.

How did you get that one done? The worst I have encountered is 30 mins in either FRA, CDG or LHR and they are probably the top-3 crap airports in Europe.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 121): We need the security

And today the US just harasses visitors while the actual security provided is complete and utter rubbish.

I don't question the desire for security. It is just that is is delivered with a level of malice and incompetence which is just astounding. An immigration officer asking me stupid questions for 10 minutes is just not value added. I am on the visa waiver program and required to submit all my info at least 72 hours before departure. My security screening should be done before I even board the plane! And if that can not be done, a grumpy immigration officer is not going to change that. They also will not stop any terrorism because the terrorist will fly in with a valid visa and a clean luggage and if he needs something, obtain that in the US. This whole facade is costing the US billions in lost income and provides no benefit whatsoever, apart from looking good on Fox news when the politician can claim with a straight face he is tough on terrorism. Its all just a load of crap.

I had Malaysian colleagues go through an visa application process which took more than a month, included company letters (and this was US company included in S&P 500 list) and a face to face interview, being interrogated for 2 hours on arrival questioning why he was coming to the US. What the hell was this 1 month visa application process for!!!!

If entering the US was not as hostile, I will go there with my family on a holiday and spend a shitload of money. Today, it is just not worth the pain. In the horrible part is once your in, the US is great for a holiday, but a few idiots destroy it all. And Las vegas is seeing the effects today: it is MUCH easier to enter China to gamble in Macau than to enter the US. If you can enter China and Russia easier than the US, you have a bit of a problem...

Quoting angmoh (Reply 126): How did you get that one done?

If you re-read his post, it was a hypothetical

Quoting angmoh (Reply 126): And today the US just harasses visitors while the actual security provided is complete and utter rubbish.

This I agree with. With utmost respect to the United States, the current situation does more to deter trade and investment than it does to encourage security.

Without making this thread highly political, someone upthread mentioned Boston. Those individuals were known to the FBI prior to them even leaving the USA. Similarly, the 9/11 terrorists only used items that were legal per FAA regulations to hijack the aircraft. Making life hell for a family visiting Disneyworld does not excuse past security failures.

Quoting angmoh (Reply 126): the horrible part is once your in, the US is great for a holiday, but a few idiots destroy it all

Drop "for a holiday" and I'm with you 9000%  

I'll say it again, I am in no way criticizing the American people or the country I love, but rather the Government on both sides of the aise.

Quoting anrec80 (Reply 111): I would support this scheme for the US - including airports, FAA, TSA, etc. All those entities must get off the taxpayer budgets and learn to earn themselves - through passenger, airline, overflight fees, retail, warehousing, etc. Then there won't be any kinds of FAA furloughs. Instead, they just cut the funding and restored it shortly. In this situation, the Congress should have said that all of them getting off taxpayers and gradually go on their own. If some of them still need subsidies (such as remote airfields in Alaska), then they need to be cross-subsidized from revenue generated by heavily traveled routes such as NYC-LAX. This is similar to the way it's done in Canada.

Ever hear of the "Airport Trust Fund"? This is where the ticket taxes and fees go to and if we could keep presidents from dipping into it to "balance the budget" (Clinton), it might get built up to a point where it is actually useful. Obviously, it's not enough, because of the necessity of allocating budget money, but it IS a start.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 108): Case in point, congress will NOT allow several ATC centers to be consolidated due to NextGen because of the job losses in their districts. This has happened a few times costing the FAA millions in redundant facilities and equipment while not being able to realize the benefits of the investments made.

Spot on! Houston Center was already supposed to be gone by now. Leased building, and airport property the airport authority wants back for better puposes. Congressmen/women and NATCA will block that until it's a waste too big to ignore by even the biggest pork barrel spenders. New Center buildings, purpose specific and expandable need to be built at the chosen locations, and consolidation gotten on with. We don't need all of the eggs in one basket, and, we don't need 20 baskets. Close the high cost of living locations like Oakland, and New York, then consider security and natural disaster scenarios to get a couple of more. Los Angeles to Albuquerque, Oakland to Salt Lake and/or Seattle. Salt Lake to Denver. Chicago split up between Minniapolis, Kansas City, and Indy. Houston to Ft. Worth, Memphis, Albuquerque, and Jax. Just a few thoughts.

Quoting kevi747 (Reply 110): Their job should be to ensure the traveller has the right to be in the country and then to ensure they're not carrying contraband. Not to humiliate/intimidate, scream at, and belittle someone who gets confused, or forgets to sign a form, or dares to take out their cell phone to look at a text. Really?!?

     

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 107): To be fair though, this possibly limited to the USA. My mother flew SYD-YVR-YYZ-RDU and was interrogated about why she was going to the USA. (This was Canadian immigration at YVR, not pre-clearance at YYZ)

Having to enter Canada while in transit to the States is a situation to be avoided, especially if the need to enter Canada is unexpected (like from a cancelled onward flight). That's as true for US citizens as for others, though I'd hope it's less of a problem for Canadians.

Quoting kevi747 (Reply 110): How's this for a nightmare scenario: If it was so important for federal officers to be armed, then why aren't TSA officers (who are handling people directly off the street) issued firearms? Surely they are more likely to need them than people processing passengers (who have ALL BEEN SCREENED for weapons) arriving from outside the country.

To be fair, that's hardly unique to the States, and it's even true in some places (e.g. France) that are quite anti-gun. I've never seen an unarmed immigration person entering or exiting France.

Quoting kevi747 (Reply 110): But they are a troop of girls scouts compared to the pit of evil vipers that we have stationed in Canada to do pre-clearnce for US bound flights. They are literally a legalized gang of hoodlums who take great pleasure in seeing who can be the cruelest to travelers. And there is absolutely no recourse other than not to return to this country, which is what this whole thread is about.

I can honestly say that in the dozens of times I've gone through US pre-clearance at Canadian airports I've never experienced anything even close to that. Their demeanor ranges from strictly professional to sorta-friendly. Occasionally they'll ask a few more detailed questions, but that's it. I know they can be a pain in the ass, and they have rather significant powers, and there are horror stories of racial profiling. But by and large they are just doing a job.

There is one BIG significant benefit to the pre-clearance system: if a US border agent wants to give you a hard time, there's a limit. All they can do is deny you entry. If they want to arrest you, they have to get the mounties because technically they are on Canadian soil, and that would only happen if they've got some serious evidence of drugs, or terrorist activity. By contrast, when you cross the US border by land, you are already on US soil when you talk to the agent -- and they can arrest you and ship you off to GITMO with no explanations if they feel like it. All they gotta do is invoke National Security, and you are toast. Bear that in mind the next time you think you might lip off to one of these guys.

Quoting kevi747 (Reply 110): But they are a troop of girls scouts compared to the pit of evil vipers that we have stationed in Canada to do pre-clearnce for US bound flights. They are literally a legalized gang of hoodlums who take great pleasure in seeing who can be the cruelest to travelers. And there is absolutely no recourse other than not to return to this country, which is what this whole thread is about.

You remind me of when a Canadian friend was coming to visit me and the "evil viper" at pre-clearance asked her how much money she had on her... she answered truthfully - $40 CDN. The "viper" said that she couldn't go to the US because that was not enough cash. She argued that she was getting picked up at the airport by a friend that a) she was staying with, b) she had several credit cards, and C) her CDN bank ATM works all over the States. The "viper" hassled her some more and and she asked for his supervisor who supported his position. She asked just how much "cash" would she need for the long weekend and he told her that she would have to go to an ATM and get a print out of her bank balance and then he would decide if she had enough cash. I wish that I could say that this was an isolated incident but unfortunately there are way to many wanna-be cops that allow the power of the position to get to their heads.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 122): I actually agree with this. What's more, I've been on the receiving end of this. I'm a British citizen, and have a British passport. Nonetheless, on the basis I have no intention of living in the UK or anywhere else in the EU, I often only travel with my Australian passport. When I've accidentally joined the EU line out of habit, I have always been put in my proper place as a non-EU citizen.

They are flexible if you are travelling with your wife on a different passport. You can queue together in either line.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 114): A visa less transfer does not cross your borders, that is exactly the point.

When you have instances like this:

Fake Pilot Arrested After Entering Cockpit at Philadelphia Airport
http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/...it-us-airways-philadelphia-airport

Passenger accidentally gets on airport tarmac
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/travel/georgia-passenger-tarmac

Miffed woman enters airport with forged e-ticket, held
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-...-ticket-held/Article1-1004744.aspx

Woman fools Japan's airport security fingerprint system
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/woman-f...gerprint-system-20090102-78rv.html

...I just think it is wise for the US to prevent visa less international transfers. Airports around the world are not secure and theoretically if you can forge/hack/bribe your way into any airport in the world you could make it to the US just by buying a ticket. At least that person would need a visa and passport to board a flight to the US which gives another level of security against foreign airport security gaffs. There is just too much potential for more security problems on the plane ride to the US (e.g. underwear DTW bomber with a plane full of Americans), at a US airport, and maybe even outside a US airport if they can get out illegally too. I understand that it is frustrating for non-Americans. I get it and I hate it but I hate the alternative too.

World peace is the answer !  

tortugamon

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 127): both sides of the aise.

Close! At least you didn't say 'Isle'   

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 134):

If you could than explain what that has to do with either visa less or only international to international transfer without crossing the border I would understand your post.
If that is an explanation for how international travelers are treated in the USA you should start again.

Your biggest problem has been domestic flight and people already living in the USA.

How to bash international travel helps with those problems will be a mystery for me.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 137): If you could than explain what that has to do with either visa less or only international to international transfer without crossing the border I would understand your post. If that is an explanation for how international travelers are treated in the USA you should start again.

Immigration and customs for non-American travelers is slow and can be rude especially in some US airports. That is clearly documented with many comments. I feel for non-Americans. You have my full sympathy, sorry. I might even right a letter. Most agree. Full stop. There will be more posts to come talking about how people are being mistreated I am sure, but not from me.

The first line of my comment indicates which part of this conversation I am talking about:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 134): ...I just think it is wise for the US to prevent visa less international transfers. Airports around the world are not secure and theoretically if you can forge/hack/bribe your way into any airport in the world you could make it to the US just by buying a ticket. At least that person would need a visa and passport to board a flight to the US which gives another level of security against foreign airport security gaffs. There is just too much potential for more security problems on the plane ride to the US (e.g. underwear DTW bomber with a plane full of Americans), at a US airport, and maybe even outside a US airport if they can get out illegally too. I understand that it is frustrating for non-Americans. I get it and I hate it but I hate the alternative too.

You can do damage to Americans without crossing a border through immigration at JFK. Visas give some transparency into who is coming and who can come to the US that does not rely on some airport security guard that I had to bribe a couple weeks ago at Kathmandu airport in Nepal. Presumably (and hopefully) without an authentic visa people with bad intentions would not be able to even get on the plane.

tortugamon

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 123): Quoting flyingalex (Reply 64): Sorry, but that is pathetic. Any flight attendant who believes this needs to retire immediately." You honestly think that? A good chunk of airlines would dump flight attendants like a hot potato if they weren't required by law. The ULCC would be first to do it, not a doubt in my mind. Do they offer other services, yes and it is welcome, but their number 1 job is safety, not to look good. -DiamondFlyer

Don't just quote my post, read it:

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 64): Sorry, but that is pathetic. Any flight attendant who believes this needs to retire immediately. There is a lot more to the job. Safety is the most important aspect, but to reduce the responsibilities of a flight attendant to their part in flight safety is a cop-out. Flight attendant is a SERVICE profession, and anyone who is not OK with that is simply in the wrong job. Or are you seriously trying to tell me that you think a flight attendant's job is to do the safety briefing, sit by the emergency exit for take-off, then hide in the galley with a magazine for hours until sitting by the exit for landing again?

Safety is a flight attendant's #1 responsibility. But it is NOT their ONLY responsibility, and any flight attendant who thinks so has a misconception of what their job entails.

I couldn't care less what a flight attendant looks like, but I do care what sort of service they provide. Any FA who hides in the galley from just after take-off to just before landing is simply not suited for the job, and should be fair enough to make way for others who will do the job with more enthusiasm.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 138): You can do damage to Americans without crossing a border through immigration at JFK. Visas give some transparency into who is coming and who can come to the US that does not rely on some airport security guard that I had to bribe a couple weeks ago at Kathmandu airport in Nepal. Presumably (and hopefully) without an authentic visa people with bad intentions would not be able to even get on the plane.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (a.k.a. the Underpants Bomber) had a valid US visa.

Richard Reid (a.k.a. the Shoe Bomber) was a British citizen, and thus visa-exempt.


They were both allowed on flights because they were eligible to enter the US. Clearly, the answer lies in effective security screening of passengers, not in channeling everyone through immigration upon arrival, even if they are connecting to a third country?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 21): airline passengers are groped, taxed, and hassled, ' No argument there. TSA has pushed boundaries on our personal freedoms, no doubt about it.

Saying TSA has pushed boundaries on our personal freedoms is uninformed overraction. If anything TSA has hindered security in order to stay as far away as possible from hassling, groping, or pushing boundaries on personal freedoms. If I was in charge of TSA, no one would get into an airport without a full hands on patdown/body search done to police suspect standards. This is in fact the standard security mechanism in many countries and is both faster and more secure than the largely security theater niceties that TSA get slandered for.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 39): Of course there is no international trafic, you are avoiding to get it.

No, there really is no international traffic. The US historically has been rather poorly placed for international transit traffic flows. About the only one that makes any sense would be north asia to south America and that is a very very recent traffic pattern with still limited volume.

In contrast many of the large scale international transit hubs have been international transit hubs for hundreds of years: LHR, AMS, CDG, HKG, SIN, etc. Or where designed and built when pretty much any and every flight was an international flight (aka all of the EU). Or were of recent design specifically as transit hubs (the ME3).

The US by contrast has almost always been an O&D travel market from an international perspective going back for quite some time.

Quoting angmoh (Reply 40): I had once a 6 hour layover in LAX. The only place to sit was a cramped, dirty, disgusting McDonalds. 6 hours of torture. If there is a decent place to eat, I would have spent the time and money.

Please don't compare LAX to rest of the US. LAX is quite possibly the worst airport in the world. The only reason it still exists is because there isn't room to build a new one and they can demo and start from scratch and keep it all open.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 47): Case and point Duty Free shops at airports outside of the US are huge massive stores now take look at a duty free shop at any US international gateway airport and you will notice that all of our duty free shops here in the US do not even compare in size. Duty Free shops here in the US are much smaller and do not carry the variety of items offered at a Duty Free shop one would find at any international airport outside of the US and the reason for this is because the number one customer at any US airport is domestic passengers not international passengers and that is not going to change. So yes US airports need to update and/or build more modern terminals but if you think that a US airport is going to resemble an airport that you would find outside of the US then you are greatly mistaken because that will never happen.

I'm hard pressed to ever have seen an item at duty free either in the US or outside that wasn't cheaper in the US outside of an airport. The only things I've ever bought at a duty free were things I cannot get/find in the US. As an example, you aren't going to beat the alcohol prices of a BevMo in the US in any Duty Free anywhere. Same goes for perfume. In other places with high VAT, duty free makes sense, but for US consumers, duty free is often not cost effective.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 60): The second problem makes it difficult for the airports to earn money. As pointed out above, in some other airports in the world 50% of revenue is generated from airport sales. There is no particular reason why this couldn't happen in the US as well, if the airports were designed for the purpose, had nicer architecture, etc. I view this as a missed business opportunity.

The simple fact is Americans do not shop at airports. Anything available in an airport is available cheaper outside of it.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 80): Most of you who are US citizens fail to realize one thing, flight inside the Schengen area compares to domestic flight in the USA.

Not really, culturally and historically the Schengen flights have operated as international flights and as such the concept of international transit is very much in grained in the EU market because in effect what should of been your domestic market was an international market. So the Schengen airport operate and flow very differently than the US airports which had real domestic travel and many with only domestic travel from the very beginning.

Quoting spink (Reply 141): Not really, culturally and historically the Schengen flights have operated as international flights and as such the concept of international transit is very much in grained in the EU market because in effect what should of been your domestic market was an international market. So the Schengen airport operate and flow very differently than the US airports which had real domestic travel and many with only domestic travel from the very beginning.

That is a misconception. All the same what historical was, airports had to adjust to Schengen. It exists since 1990, so we talk about 23 years of Schengen. Iceland for example joined 1996. There is hardly any terminal left that has not been rebuild during that time. It compares to domestic traffic in the USA. You enter Schengen on the first airport you arrive in Schengen and from there on you are mixed in with domestic trafic. The only difference between domestic and Schengen travel is how you count it in official statistics. If you compare numbers, than Schengen + domestic travel is much bigger than international to and from outside of Schengen on most European hubs.

If you look at the US airports with the worst track record for international travelers, than you see airports having had international traffic for a long time and instead of adjusting to it they are getting worse.

Quoting spink (Reply 141): I'm hard pressed to ever have seen an item at duty free either in the US or outside that wasn't cheaper in the US outside of an airport. The only things I've ever bought at a duty free were things I cannot get/find in the US. As an example, you aren't going to beat the alcohol prices of a BevMo in the US in any Duty Free anywhere. Same goes for perfume. In other places with high VAT, duty free makes sense, but for US consumers, duty free is often not cost effective.

About the only two things I buy in Duty Free are Sheridan's Coffee+Vanilla liqeur and Stoli Elit Vodka...I have a devil of a time finding the Vodka where I'm living currently, so I always pick up a few bottles anytime I return home.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 142): If you look at the US airports with the worst track record for international travelers, than you see airports having had international traffic for a long time and instead of adjusting to it they are getting worse.

The point is that historically the big airports in the EU region have been primarily international and international transit airport. The airports in the US have always been primarily domestic airports. This is born out simply by looking at the passenger types over the years in the EU region airports. They have always been dominated by international traffic, that some of that is now categorized as Schengen does change the basis on how they've structurally and historically been organized. In contrast, there has never been a US airport that was primarily international traffic. In fact, for US airports, it is rare for more than 10% of passengers to have ever been international. Therefore the bias in the design and operation of EU region airports is international travel and for US airports it is domestic travel.

Because of this bias, it is highly unlikely that US airports will organize around an international transit model like most other airports outside the US. And this actually makes perfect business sense for US airports as 90+% of the volume is domestic, even at the large US international hubs. Another thing to recognize about US airport operations is that a large number of international departures are done via primarily domestic terminals/gates for short haul international travel (Mexico, Canada, Caribbean).

Now if say South/Central America to Asia traffic become voluminous enough that the US airlines want to get into the market in a large way, the airlines may push for some airports international terminals to become fully international transit compliant, but so far none have. If they do, the 3 most likely airports are IAH, ATL, and MIA which are the SA hubs for UA, DL, and AA respectively.

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 137): They were both allowed on flights because they were eligible to enter the US. Clearly, the answer lies in effective security screening of passengers, not in channeling everyone through immigration upon arrival, even if they are connecting to a third country?

No, the answer lies in an efficient secret service, better a coordination between the various services. This ngoes like a red tape through from 9/11 where all the terrorists had been known and the attack could have been prevented if that knowledge had been put together, and it still exists today where the older brother of the Boston marathon bombers had been known to the agencies. Even the Russian secret service tipped the FBI.

Instead, millions of passengers are needlessly harrassed every day, from babies to old ladies. Needless, useless and foolish. The least they could do is handle the screenings European style, friendly and efficient. Passengers are passengers, not terrorists.

Quoting spink (Reply 138): If I was in charge of TSA, no one would get into an airport without a full hands on patdown/body search done to police

So you would establish a police state? The US is over policed already. Most likely siuch a search wthout nwarrant would be against the constitution,

Quoting spink (Reply 138): The simple fact is Americans do not shop at airports. Anything available in an airport is available cheaper outside of it.

But transit passengers do. MIA would be a prime airport for visa less transit to South and Central America. Luxury items in many of those countries are highly taxed or not available in first place. But even when items cost more than at HIgh Street, many people switch off their brains and buy. Buying booze at airports does not make sense to a German because the stuff is cheaper at average retail. Strill they buy,

But I can give you other examples, luxury cellphones retailing for several thousands of € , even 25K are sold in transit shops at FRA to people who have the money.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 142): So you would establish a police state? The US is over policed already. Most likely siuch a search wthout nwarrant would be against the constitution,

Anything less than a full on full body pat down is security theater, plain and simple. Any place they actually have an concern over security does it. As far as being a search without warrant or unconstitutional, it is a consensual search. You implicitly consent to it by traveling by plane in both the US and many other countries. Same thing as at court houses and various secure public and private facilities the world over. Same thing at a customs checkpoint.

TWOV in the US does not have enough traffic to justify the costs.

And as far as airport retail goes, what they have in the US, even some of the high end stuff, is almost never used.

Quoting spink (Reply 143): Anything less than a full on full body pat down is security theater,

Well, you guys don't learn. The terrorists do. While you erase basic human rights guaranteed in each and every western constitution and justify that literally with "offers you cannotta refusa", the terrorists are smart and attack soft targets.

The Boston marathon was an example. You can search people at airports as much as you like, you cannot search people in the same fashion going to sports or other public events.

Not even a police state is immune against terror attacks, in the contrary, a police state is the reason. Ask Mr. Bashad in Syria.

Can we reach some conclusions?

Majority of US posters (many of whom have perhaps not flown outside USA / Canada / Hawaii / Central & South America) consider a one size fits all international security / customs approach is appropriate. International passengers are a negligible part of the US aviation scene, so it is not cost-effective or worthwhile, to provide transit lounges, modern airports or deliver World's best practice for processing and customer service.

The majority of international posters, would prefer US customs and immigration did adopt a risk-based approach, and would like staff to receive basic customer service training. At a select number of airports (say 2 each on the East and West coasts), facilities should be built to cater for international passengers.

During April, Emirates IFE carried part of an interview with Tim Clark. He discusses the importance of the airport experience, how it influences passenger perception of the carrier they are using and the country, their propensity to travel in the same direction in the future, and even travel internationally again.

Quoting planesmart (Reply 145): The majority of international posters, would prefer US customs and immigration did adopt a risk-based approach

Which foreign countries adopt a risk-based approach? I don't think I've ever cleared an immigration checkpoint that had more than three lanes (typically domestic or domestic/common market and everyone else, though IIRC there are some South American countries that have domestic/Mercosur/everyone else.

Quoting planesmart (Reply 145): and would like staff to receive basic customer service training.

In which foreign countries do immigration staff receive basic customer service training? I'd say my US experiences are roughly on par with most of Europe (though probably better than a few countries, like Great Britain) and well better than Canada.

I think customer service for immigration staff is a good idea, though I've traveled enough to know that, unfortunately, the US doesn't come close to having a monopoly on poor service from immigration staff. About the only region with consistently good experiences is east Asia.

Quoting planesmart (Reply 145): Majority of US posters (many of whom have perhaps not flown outside USA / Canada / Hawaii / Central & South America) consider a one size fits all international security / customs approach is appropriate.

One size fits all is pretty common in the rest of the world, too. Why is it okay elsewhere but a problem in the States?

Quoting planesmart (Reply 145): At a select number of airports (say 2 each on the East and West coasts), facilities should be built to cater for international passengers.

So, which airports are those? You have, at the moment, how many hubs (or large airports) that have arriving international flights? Each airline has 3 or 4 or more. Are we to close down MSP, DTW, DFW or even ORD for international arrivals and departures and relegate those flights to just the coasts?

As has been said, it all comes down to dollars. If there were a larger percentage of international travellers coming in (or leaving) than domestic, then perhaps it would be worthwhile to have those specific facilities. However, since there is not and most of those airports and facilities are government run, it's doubtful, in the current economic climate, that you're going to get much support for it in this country. Perhaps, the foreign carriers that are flying here and carrying most of these pax, need to push for it, somehow.......maybe that will help.....the people that actually USE the facilities and get the benefit of them.

All that having been said, I do agree that the TSA and CBP people need to go thru some sort of customer service training..........and basic hospitality training........learn to realize that there are basic differences, particularly with the people that are standing in front of you, waiting for you to welcome them to the U.S. ..........that would seem to alleviate much of the problem that I read about on this thread. That and streamlining the immigration process.


Perhaps, instead of having the CBP and TSA agents from the large, metro areas, they need to have the ports of entry in the heartland, where people might be more welcoming........whaddya think?  

Quoting planesmart (Reply 145): Majority of US posters (many of whom have perhaps not flown outside USA / Canada / Hawaii / Central & South America) consider a one size fits all international security / customs approach is appropriate. International passengers are a negligible part of the US aviation scene, so it is not cost-effective or worthwhile, to provide transit lounges, modern airports or deliver World's best practice for processing and customer service.

In this thread you just might be wrong, and I only pray you are.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 146): Why is it okay elsewhere but a problem in the States?

  

Quoting mayor (Reply 147): So, which airports are those? You have, at the moment, how many hubs (or large airports) that have arriving international flights? Each airline has 3 or 4 or more. Are we to close down MSP, DTW, DFW or even ORD for international arrivals and departures and relegate those flights to just the coasts?

Dont forget IAH and ORD!! They must be shut down at all costs! LMAO!

Quoting mayor (Reply 147): Perhaps, instead of having the CBP and TSA agents from the large, metro areas, they need to have the ports of entry in the heartland, where people might be more welcoming........whaddya think?

Nothing beats coming through Immigrations and having a sweet as tea Southern Belle say "Howdy y'all welcome to the US!"    as happened to me the last time I transited through IAH.

Quoting planesmart (Reply 145): Can we reach some conclusions? Majority of US posters (many of whom have perhaps not flown outside USA / Canada / Hawaii / Central & South America) consider a one size fits all international security / customs approach is appropriate. International passengers are a negligible part of the US aviation scene, so it is not cost-effective or worthwhile, to provide transit lounges, modern airports or deliver World's best practice for processing and customer service.

I can assure you that I've traveled extensively all over the world and been to almost every major airport in the world. The US airports are significantly different because the US is significantly different. It is and has been for almost a century the largest domestic air travel market in the world. Its airports and procedures are designed around its actual market.

In contrast, the idea of domestic air travel in much of the rest of the world really didn't exist until recently. Europe until relatively recently was pretty much only international air travel. The same applies for the vast majority of Asia, India, Africa, and South/Central America. This in general constitutes the significant differences in how airports in US and rest of the world are designed and the procedures that they follow.

And the US has many modern airports (and many more than any other country in the world). TSA security generally is no different from the security processes employed at any other airport in the world. This is of course based on my personal experience having gone through security at a great many airports throughout the world.

Quoting planesmart (Reply 145): The majority of international posters, would prefer US customs and immigration did adopt a risk-based approach, and would like staff to receive basic customer service training. At a select number of airports (say 2 each on the East and West coasts), facilities should be built to cater for international passengers.

CBP/ICE isn't going to adopt a risk-based approach. Nor do most other countries in the world at large or in Europe. And the US isn't going to build any International transit hubs for quite some time because the market for those hubs in the US due to geography isn't large enough to support them. In the future as S.A. to Asia and and S.A. to Europe traffic increases, it is possible that some International transit hubs will be built in the US, but currently the market demand just isn't there. If and when they are build, it is unlikely that they will be built on the East and West coasts. The more likely locations are IAH, ATL, MIA, and HNL.

Quote: During April, Emirates IFE carried part of an interview with Tim Clark. He discusses the importance of the airport experience, how it influences passenger perception of the carrier they are using and the country, their propensity to travel in the same direction in the future, and even travel internationally again.

Emirates is primarily a transit airline, its amount of O&D traffic is a small fraction of its overall traffic. For the US market, people care much more about getting into and out of the airport as fast as possible and getting between your arriving flight and departing flight in under 10 minutes so you can schedule an under 40 minute layover. For Emirates, the airport is likely the only impression of their home country that the vast majority of their passengers will ever experience. And as great as many of the Asian airports are, when I was traveling back and forth between SFO and southern india, when the travel distance was basically the same if I went east or west, I almost always ended up going via Europe (LHR/FRA) because the actual travel experience was so much better with minimal layovers (as low as 55 minutes) vs several hours in Asia. For the frequent biz traveler, actual airports once they get to a minimal level are immaterial.