Thoughts?

http://www.businessinsider.com/airpo...s-are-bad-and-getting-worse-2015-1

If this has been posted or discussed before, please delete. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks

FROM THE ARTICLE:

Two years ago in a CNN poll of 1,200 overseas business travelers who have visited the United States, a full 20% said they would not visit the United States again due to onerous entry procedures at airports, including long processing lines. Forty-three percent said they would discourage others from visiting the United States. Separately, in a copy of Air Line Pilot magazine, US Chamber of Commerce counsel Carol Hallett stated that “the United States risks falling behind Asia, the Middle East, and Europe as the global aviation leader.”

I’d say that battle was lost a long time ago.

The United States of America may have pioneered commercial aviation, but today the crossroads of global air commerce are places like Dubai, Frankfurt, Istanbul, Seoul, Hong Kong and Bangkok. These are the places — not New York or Chicago or Los Angeles — that are setting the standards. They’ve got the best airports, the fastest-growing airlines, and the most convenience for travelers.

[Edited 2015-01-26 10:00:37]

Good article. I agree with many of the sentiments about coming into the US, I find it onerous every time. Some of the things that make it such a pain, especially with the transits, is entirely related to how the US government screens everything and makes everyone do customs, even though it's completely silly. What Americans need to do is insist on simplifying it and removing all the nonsense.

Well, if you're travelling from Europe to SE Asia or Australia, of course the Gulf or SE Asia are a natural connecting point.

Much of the world doesn't have the processes that the U.S. and Western Europe have to allow their citizenry a say in airport siting and expansion. That can be a positive and a negative. I see the environmental degradation that has occurred in places like China over the past 50 years, and talking with my friends in China, they are getting fed up with being poisoned in the name of progress. There has to be a middle ground, but in the US we haven't found it. In fact, in the US we keep electing officials who promise to downsize government, and one of the casualties is infrastructure.

It is true what the report says about American airports. They really should make them a lot nicer (Like JFK).

Of course, much of it is misleading or wrong when considering those airports with significant populations of transfer passengers. Traveling through an ITI airport (or without checked bags) and with Global Entry, it's easily possible to be back airside within 30 minutes. There are airports in the US that need improvement for sure, but there are plenty of European airports that could use work too (e.g. CDG).

Airports and facilities in the US used to be top of the line. In the 70's. It's pretty much been downhill from there.
The biggest problem today is the CBP. Arrived recently at JFK's Terminal 4 for the first time. Three flights arriving at the same time, one of them an A380. Immigration was actually not bad using the new computers, but Customs killed any improvement with a single file line out the door.

I think its more or less totally irrelevant

Quoting pnd100 (Thread starter): Dubai, Frankfurt, Istanbul, Seoul, Hong Kong and Bangkok. These are the places — not New York or Chicago or Los Angeles

Just look at the quoted airports, its nothing to do with entry procedures and everything to do with location. By virtue of having 3000 miles of the Atlantic on the East Coast and even more of the Pacific on the West, The USA is never going to have a huge number of International transfer passengers. The only long haul route to Europe that I can think of that has a non clear cut decision on which way to fly is from New Zealand.

If all the people who threatened to boycott products, suppliers and Countries actually did so World trade would more or less collapse.

Like much of the infrastructure in the US, I would agree that many airports are dated and not up to international standards. But of course there are many examples where this is the case (roads, trains, etc. are all falling behind the rest of the world and this is an urgent issue to be addressed).

The main gripe of the author seems to be the international transit situation. In reality, the US is not geographically positioned for, and never will be positioned to be a major global connecting hub. DXB is situated for transfers between Europe and Asia/Australia/Africa. HKG is well positioned for intra-Asia connections. The European hubs are well situated for North America to the Middle East and Africa. The US, on the other hand, is not in the best geographic location for international connections. South America to Asia is about the only logical connection through North America, as the Caribbean and South America are already well-served from Europe. Other than potentially at a small handful of US airports, it simply isn't worth the expense to redesign the airport to accommodate transfer pax.

The immigration procedures in the US are certainly over the top and this is an area for improvement, but I think it's getting better with the introduction of global entry and more automated kiosks, which frees up the officers to deal with other things.

With that said, this article is a bit melodramatic. Has the author ever transferred at FRA, with its confusing directions, poor and overpriced food choices, and dark/dirty old terminals? What about AMS, where one must clear security at the gate and then sit in an overcrowded holding pen until boarding time (while meanwhile listening to worthless announcements for someone who is "delaying the flight to Milan and whose baggage will be offloaded" 4 concourses away). Or there's connecting at WAW with no free wi-fi and horrible food choices.... or even HKG with its terrible immigration lines at peak times and looooong walks to the gate. IST is an overcrowded and dirty place that has clearly not kept up with growing demand. I can go on and on. Clearly there are issues with many US airports, but they are certainly not alone in that regard.

The problem is one of terminal design. There is no immigration checkpoint for flights leaving the United States and thus no separation between domestic and international flights. Airports in other countries split international and domestic departures, so one would have to go through an immigration checkpoint in order to leave the concourse.

There are a few improvements. The trial program for checked luggage is in place. Passengers making international-to-international connections in Houston, for example, do not need to claim their bags. These bags are sent directly to their next flight.

The next possible step would be to allow such passengers to arrive "clean" from reciprocal and agreeing airports. This would permit--say--an international-to-international passenger to clear only US immigration, but no need to clear customs. Since he or she would not have checked luggage and would have arrived from specific points of origin, there would be no need to re-clear security. So the only stop would be immigration. This would only be feasible in airports that have sterile connections between terminals/concourses.

Although pre-clearance is controversial for its cost, departure delays, and that it serves an airport with no US carriers (Abu Dhabi), this could make the transfer experience less painful in some airports. The US government seems keen to expand the programme, so it could help a little.

I agree that the US system is unduly onerous, but it's not always a breeze in other airports. A transfer in Frankfurt can require waiting in line for immigration, a ridiculously long walk through tunnels, and another long line for security. Some connections are much simpler (just immigration), but it's not always predictable.

Quoting pnd100 (Thread starter): Two years ago in a CNN poll of 1,200 overseas business travelers who have visited the United States, a full 20% said they would not visit the United States again due to onerous entry procedures at airports, including long processing lines. Forty-three percent said they would discourage others from visiting the United States. Separately, in a copy of Air Line Pilot magazine, US Chamber of Commerce counsel Carol Hallett stated that “the United States risks falling behind Asia, the Middle East, and Europe as the global aviation leader.”

I don't think it's static, just look at the new kiosks for non-Global Entry folks that the U.S. has introduced. They do however need to work on international-to-international transfers, like a couple of other countries.

There are some immediate improvements that could be made stateside:

1. Introduce TSA pre-check lanes at the TSA security checkpoints.You should be either be considered a trusted traveler or not, why the inconsistency???
2. Make Global Entry more like ABG+ lane in FRA (delete the extra customs check unless you're going into a "something to declare" lane)
3. Introduce dedicated lanes for disabled people, old people and people with small children in tow (e.g. as in DXB) as these groups now have to pass through the regular lanes until they get to the simple metal detector (coming through, coming through   )

If you're inbound to the U.S. you already went through enhanced screening at the departure gate in the country where your flight originated (i.e. rummaging through your carry-on and taking everything apart) and that's after you went through the first checkpoint, so by the time you reach U.S. soil what's the point of having yet another check, especially if you're "trusted"? Plus the whole transfer visa thing is too though. I know some people who have to fly huge detours through LatAm just because they can't transfer through MIA or EWR due to lack of Visa.

Quoting pnd100 (Thread starter): The United States of America may have pioneered commercial aviation, but today the crossroads of global air commerce are places like Dubai, Frankfurt, Istanbul, Seoul, Hong Kong and Bangkok.

For the most part, yes. But there are places like FRA and LHR where you can easily miss your non-Schengen 1.5 hr connection due to inefficient security checkpoints. The mistrust towards the previous screeners in SAL or DXB that you see in the U.S. can at times also be found elsewhere in the world. It's the arriving flights without making a connection that seem much easier in a place like Europe.

Quoting mats (Reply 8): There are a few improvements. The trial program for checked luggage is in place. Passengers making international-to-international connections in Houston, for example, do not need to claim their bags. These bags are sent directly to their next flight.

I flew CUN-ATL-RDU a few weeks ago, and I heard them announcing this on the PA in the customs area. I honestly thought I misheard them at first. They must be trying it at ATL also. I think it's a great idea.

Quoting ua900 (Reply 9): If you're inbound to the U.S. you already went through enhanced screening at the departure gate in the country where your flight originated

That may be true from flights departing Europe, but it is not the case for flights from the Caribbean, LatAm, South America. Nevertheless, most countries require some sort of security check upon first entry.

Even when I transit thru AMS from the U.S. onto another Shengen zone flight, I have to go through security again.

Quoting rwsea (Reply 7): Like much of the infrastructure in the US, I would agree that many airports are dated and not up to international standards.

One of the many prices we pay for being the world's cop.

We can fix this rather quickly. Going forward worldwide transit passengers should clear immigration, customs and security at every transit point.

Airports in the U.S. certainly aren't getting worse, especially for international travelers. Off the top of my head almost all of the country's primary intercontinental hubs - ATL, DFW, DTW, IAD, IAH, JFK, LAS, LAX, MIA, PHL and SFO - have unveiled new world class international terminals in the past 10 years or so. During the same time smaller international airports like IND, MDW, RDU, RSW and SJC have gained great new terminals too, although these are primarily enjoyed by domestic pax. Aging terminals are in the process of being replaced at other international gateways including FLL, MSY, SLC, and even LGA. These lists are by no means exhaustive, simply a way to provide examples of progress being made throughout the country.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 10): On the other hand, find me one person who enjoys transiting in JFK, ORD, MIA, or LAX. SFO, IAD, and BOS arent bad. DFW, IAH, SEA, and ATL are the best from a true hub experiance in the US IMO.

Frequently international pax arriving JFK ORD LAX must head to another terminal (sometimes quite far away) for their connection ... a major minus in my book (and that's coming from someone with a US passport already). JFK afternoon is the absolute worst .... especially when the ethnic visitors arrive with 10 checked bags and cannot speak any language other than their home country's.

Sometimes the small "forgotten" airports are best to transit at ... like SJC. It's anything but glamorous terminal, but thanks to very few international flights, the arrival is such a breeze. I had similar experiences in other airports like GMP and SHA.

the Long View? Unless somebody is paying for it? then it IS what it IS. No airport Controls Customs, That's federal.
No airport controls Immigration. That's also Federal. If they don't Like it?? Don't Come!! Foreign airlines come here FULL every day
I really don't see the Need for lessening the entry security . You want to come to Rome? We'll ? We're the Romans.
Nobody has really had that much of a problem that they're staying home.

Quoting SFOA380 (Reply 12): One of the many prices we pay for being the world's cop.

One of the many prices you pay for having the wrong priorities .... more like  

Quoting pnd100 (Thread starter): Two years ago in a CNN poll of 1,200 overseas business travelers who have visited the United States, a full 20% said they would not visit the United States again due to onerous entry procedures at airports,

Yes. Well we were brutally attacked on 9/11 by foreigners. So things tightened up a bit. Sorry to say, that isn't changing. Basically, if you are not coming to the US, they don't want you transiting it. Much like if you are not flying, they don't want you past TSA anymore. Minimizes risk.

Quoting pnd100 (Thread starter): The United States of America may have pioneered commercial aviation, but today the crossroads of global air commerce are places like Dubai, Frankfurt, Istanbul, Seoul, Hong Kong and Bangkok. These are the places — not New York or Chicago or Los Angeles — that are setting the standards. They’ve got the best airports, the fastest-growing airlines, and the most convenience for travelers.

I'd argue that US aviation is safer than it has ever been and we have and are the leader on that front. And that really does mean everything.

I'd also state that it hasn't been that safe of a year in SE Asia despite the gleaming world leading terminals in those places.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 16): I really don't see the Need for lessening the entry security . You want to come to Rome? We'll ? We're the Romans. Nobody has really had that much of a problem that they're staying home.

It's not the entry security, but the transit security. In the US, someone going from PEK to PTY must "enter" the US then exit the US while most hubs globally allow you to pass through the hub in the sterile area without ever bothering entering the transit nation.

But since the concept of "sterile transit" doesn't really apply to the US, it's rather moot.

[Edited 2015-01-26 13:50:45]

Quoting a380787 (Reply 19): It's not the entry security, but the transit security. In the US, someone going from YYZ to PTY must "enter" the US then exit the US while most hubs globally allow you to pass through the hub in the sterile area without ever bothering entering the transit nation. But since the concept of "sterile transit" doesn't really apply to the US, it's rather moot.

In most instances (and AFAIK all instances of an online connection), YYZ-PTY doesn't have security at the US connecting point.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 20): In most instances (and AFAIK all instances of an online connection), YYZ-PTY doesn't have security at the US connecting point.

Okay bad example. PEK-PTY then.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 15): especially when the ethnic visitors arrive with 10 checked bags and cannot speak any language other than their home country's.

What do you mean by 'ethnic'?  

Quoting Prost (Reply 2): There has to be a middle ground, but in the US we haven't found it. In fact, in the US we keep electing officials who promise to downsize government, and one of the casualties is infrastructure.

This seems to be the trend in Canada as well but I don't see it being reversed. The average person doesn't seem to place much priority on infrastructure. Maybe it's not glamorous enough?

Quoting mats (Reply 8): Although pre-clearance is controversial for its cost, departure delays, and that it serves an airport with no US carriers (Abu Dhabi), this could make the transfer experience less painful in some airports. The US government seems keen to expand the programme, so it could help a little.

Pre-clearance seems like a good idea. I'm sure it has downsides but overall I think the positive outweighs the negative. Maybe I'm biased since we have several facilities in Canada. I'm sure it may have a different impact in Ireland or the UAE

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 14): Airports in the U.S. certainly aren't getting worse, especially for international travelers. Off the top of my head almost all of the country's primary intercontinental hubs - ATL, DFW, DTW, IAD, IAH, JFK, LAS, LAX, MIA, PHL and SFO - have unveiled new world class international terminals in the past 10 years or so. During the same time smaller international airports like IND, MDW, RDU, RSW and SJC have gained great new terminals too, although these are primarily enjoyed by domestic pax. Aging terminals are in the process of being replaced at other international gateways including FLL, MSY, SLC, and even LGA. These lists are by no means exhaustive, simply a way to provide examples of progress being made throughout the country.

Good points

Quoting bgm (Reply 22): What do you mean by 'ethnic'?

Visit JFK Terminal 1 arrivals on any early afternoon.

ps : I'm not Caucasian so don't try the MSNBC-card on me.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 13): We can fix this rather quickly. Going forward worldwide transit passengers should clear immigration, customs and security at every transit point.

Unless I am completely misreading this your solutions is to make everywhere as bad as the US. I have on several occasions chosen to fly east from the UK to AU/NZ so that I didn't have to go through US immigration/customs just to transit the county.

I have had more bad than go experiences on visiting the US. The worst was probably well over 2hours in a hot corridor waiting to get into Miami. By the time we did clear customs our bags we just in piles around the baggage hall. Just horrible.

I still don't understand why on arrival at ATL from London it is necessary to go through full screening, collect bags, clear customs and then have your bag atken away again so that it can be deposited on a baggage belt in a completely open collection area.

I love much of the US but your entry process puts me off visiting.

Quoting StTim (Reply 26): I still don't understand why on arrival at ATL from London it is necessary to go through full screening, collect bags, clear customs and then have your bag atken away again so that it can be deposited on a baggage belt in a completely open collection area.

It's not. See Reply 11.

Quoting StTim (Reply 26): I still don't understand why on arrival at ATL from London it is necessary to go through full screening, collect bags, clear customs and then have your bag atken away again so that it can be deposited on a baggage belt in a completely open collection area.

Complain to the Feds......all that is under their control.

I know a businessman who is related to a former coworker from South America who hadn't traveled much to the US in the last 5 years. He did a cross marketing agreement with US and Canadian companies. On arrival in NYC he was subjected to a 4 hour "interview" with US Customs and "other" officials (DEA?) and questioned on his import and export and everything was swiped for drugs. The handles of his suitcase lit up. (someone who touched it had touched drugs but nothing inside). He called the treatment humiliating, guilty until proven innocent and verbally abusive.

He called a meeting the next day and canceled the agreement removing the condition he help represent his product in the US and left on the next flight south. He next sent a letter to the US Consulate in his city, cc'd someone in the State Department, his consulate in NYC and Embassy in DC whereby he canceled the cross marketing agreement. He then set an appointment with his Canadian Consultate and asked them if they wanted his business and would he be subject to the same treatment. Of course they bent over backwards.

I fear the consulate has made promises that border services may not follow, but after two trips to Toronto he has just gotten normal customs questions. He now just allows some US companies to represent him and it is no longer a stronger profit sharing agreement. Ironically he has agreements with a Canadian company who is representing his products to the US West Coast.

These sorts of stories may be the vast minority but they get wings when spread by mouth, social media and other news stories. That is the very reason AC is targeting and enjoying a boost from their South American flights into Canadian hubs then on to other countries rather than the US. South America to China for example. I think the border programs aught to be streamlined with further abilities for individuals to register so that they can bypass (except for spot checks) much of the process and then leave the border staff free for those that need extra examination. Nexus for example.

It was like it a few years back.

Quoting pnd100 (Thread starter): US Chamber of Commerce counsel Carol Hallett stated that “the United States risks falling behind Asia, the Middle East, and Europe as the global aviation leader.”

I take exception to the idea the state of some airports is indicative of the entire US aviation industry.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 29): These sorts of stories may be the vast minority but they get wings when spread by mouth, social media and other news stories.

Anecdotal stories are just that. The rudest border patrol agent I've ever met was a few years ago when I entered Canada via Sarnia. But I'm not ignorant enough to believe that this is the norm. I've since been to Canada another 5-6 times and never had an issue since. Some people are just arseholes. That's life.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 29): I know a businessman who is related to a former coworker from South America who hadn't traveled much to the US in the last 5 years. He did a cross marketing agreement with US and Canadian companies. On arrival in NYC he was subjected to a 4 hour "interview" with US Customs and "other" officials (DEA?) and questioned on his import and export and everything was swiped for drugs. The handles of his suitcase lit up. (someone who touched it had touched drugs but nothing inside). He called the treatment humiliating, guilty until proven innocent and verbally abusive.

To be fair, this sounds shady in a least a few different ways...

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 10): I couldnt agree more. ICN, FRA, and DOH are dreams to transit in.

ICN I will give you. I have not been through the new DOH, although the old DOH was a nightmare. FRA is not a dream, unless you count nightmares as a dream. The place is crowded, dirty, dingy, has horrible signage, and it is not easy to connect between terminals. The tunnel from A to B for example is several stories down and the only way to access it is via a tiny elevator or several flights of stairs. The place is also horribly ventilated and often requires lengthy bus rides from the gate. FRA is probably my least favorite place in Europe.

Although I agree with just about all the points raised by the author - our airports are generally not up to the standards set by the Asian and Gulf airports - there are some bright spots. The new TBIT facility at LAX is (and I say this without trying to boost my own hometown airport) bar-none the nicest international terminal in the country. It looks and feels as nice as any world-class airport - great retail, plenty of quiet seating areas, and a very impressive feeling of spaciousness. It cost a fortune but I don't think anyone who used the old TBIT would say it wasn't worth every penny.

SFO and DFW's international terminals are not far behind. ORD, MIA and the New York airports are a giant mess, however, despite the patchwork that's been done over the years. IAD and ATL are ok but still require an inordinate amount of walking, busing or train-riding, or some combination of the three, to make connections. And until CPB staffs its immigration halls appropriately, the lines won't go away. Airports have built massive new immigration halls with lines of desks, and CPB doesn't staff them. Automating everything in the form of kiosks seems to be their preferred solution, which is good for US citizens but terrible for everyone else.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 15): especially when the ethnic visitors arrive ... and cannot speak any language other than their home country's.

You mean like us Americans basically anywhere we travel to   

Quoting jsnww81 (Reply 35): Automating everything in the form of kiosks seems to be their preferred solution, which is good for US citizens but terrible for everyone else.

Global Entry is most certainly open to citizens of nations other than the US. I'd like to see it extended to all VWP countries and holders of multi-entry US visas, but that's still a ways off.

[Edited 2015-01-26 18:50:01]

Here's what I think the problems are in most US airports that are sending Intl. travelers running toward the hills:

-Bland architecture.

Some of you might disagree with me on this one, but newer terminal designs in the US are starting to be like a broken record; simple lines and glass. The first thing people look at when they come to the airport is obviously the terminal building. It's a proven fact that no one wants a building to look ugly and the designers try to make it appealing to the eye. While I give them credit for creative designs like at LGB and KOA, it just seems that designs these days are starting to lose their 'special' appeal.

-Too much Govt. Interference.

We already know that the govt. is making ludicrous policies like the article stated ever since 9/11. To be honest, I believe they just made these in a hurry without thinking about the consequences it'd bring like constant traveler complaints about their rights being violated, and frequent media coverage. On the topic of in transit, there's a good thread that popped up a while ago in 2014 here.

Another thing to point out is that the officials of those US airport security programs are not chosen by the people, but by the govt. itself. Because of this, they always act in the govt.'s interest and not those of the passengers which in turn could turn potential clientele, both domestic and intl., away.

Just my   

Quoting MavyWavyATR (Reply 38): Some of you might disagree with me on this one, but newer terminal designs in the US are starting to be like a broken record; simple lines and glass. The first thing people look at when they come to the airport is obviously the terminal building. It's a proven fact that no one wants a building to look ugly and the designers try to make it appealing to the eye. While I give them credit for creative designs like at LGB and KOA, it just seems that designs these days are starting to lose their 'special' appeal.

You're not serious, are you? Do you think int'l travellers choose the airport to fly into the U.S. based on what the terminal LOOKS LIKE?

I think the biggest problem is customs and TSA and yet I hear that LHR isn't much better in this regard......I'm sure there must be other non-U.S. airports that have these same kind of problems.

Quoting StTim (Reply 26): I still don't understand why on arrival at ATL from London it is necessary to go through full screening, collect bags, clear customs and then have your bag atken away again so that it can be deposited on a baggage belt in a completely open collection area.

That is because ATL has a central security checkpoint whereby all pax clear security before taking the train when departing, so anyone arriving from outside the country has to clear security to get to the trains. Your bag is taken from you as many bags will not fit through the bag scanner at the security checkpoint. It's all a dose of inefficiency for the sake of efficiency for the vast majority of travelers, who are flying domestic. That nonsense has changed, though, with new ability to exit via the international terminal with much less fuss.

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 40): Your bag is taken from you as many bags will not fit through the bag scanner at the security checkpoint.

I thought the only bags taken from you were the ones that were tagged thru to your destination or has that changed, too?

Quoting mayor (Reply 39): I think the biggest problem is customs and TSA and yet I hear that LHR isn't much better in this regard......I'm sure there must be other non-U.S. airports that have these same kind of problems.

When there are sites like TSAstatus.net, FT's Security board, and We Won't Fly on Facebook, it reflects badly.

I'll happily transit through the US as I have Nexus / Global Entry and therefore get to avoid the freedom fondle and grilling at the border (last time I went across the agent was so quick to get rid of me I didn't understand that he had said "bye," and repeated himself in a bored but frustrated tone) but I'll still refuse to fly out of the UK and Australia for their security policies (and mentioning that drew quite the ire of the Australian contingent last time the topic came up)

And as other posters have mentioned, Canada, among other nations, are planning on capitalizing on those perceptions.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 15): Sometimes the small "forgotten" airports are best to transit at ... like SJC.

The only problem is that you have to go through customs, exit at the international departure area, walk outside to either terminal A or B, and then go through security again. The only connections that really work at SJC are flights from RNO or BOI on QX to Hawaii on AS since they are considered domestic.

The article says:

Quote: The connection process in HKG went like this: I stepped off the plane from Bangkok into a quiet, spacious, immaculately clean concourse, and walked to my connecting gate about six minutes away. A short while later I walked onto my flight to Amsterdam

Every time in the last 8+ years I flew through HKG one had to pass security there between arrival gate and connecting gate. Same for NRT.. Did I miss something?

Quoting sejtam (Reply 44): I flew through HKG one had to pass security there between arrival gate and connecting gate. Same for NRT.. Did I miss something?

Still the same. But there are several security checkpoints that allow you to transit to the departure concourse and they're usually not that busy and pretty efficient.

The post 9/11 practice of having to check immigration and customs even for transits, added to the painstaking security checks (which have gotten a lot better, by the way) is what killed any remnants of convenience in US International airports.

There is also the fact that long term and public investment, needed if you want to have large scale and efficient structures, has become a bit of a taboo in the US. Airports are run like fragmented businesses who, for the most part, lack the vision and cohesion to invest in the large scale and integrated projects that make a World Class airport these days.
Finally, many of these airports are getting old and are now 'landlocked'. The real estate needed for expansion is hard to obtain.

Im flying into EWR for the first time in March. Should I be worried? Ha  

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 34): The new DOH airport is the best airport experience Ive ever had in my million plus miles of flying. Best airport in the world in my opinion.

I wish Qatar would fly to LAX....then I could experience DOH!

Well when you are the number 1 country in the world in terms of everything especially potential terrorist attack, Well go figure.... TSA - CBP - FBI - COPS - immigration , all of them trying to screen you and that's gonna take a long line of course!

If you remove everything, then it will leave an open attack!

Now that being said, of course, Airports in US can do some major improvement such as building new terminal, renovating old terminal, etc2... the problem is, there are hundreds of airports in US! Hongkong only have 1, Dubai only have 1, Singapore only have 1, Malaysia 1, etc what else can they show off? It's easier to build 1 super mega rich airport, now what happened when you country is as big as US where you have many different important cities? It's gonna take a heck load of money to build 20 likes Dubai Airport to be put in the US.

The article seems a bit provocative. First, it quotes statistics like this:

Quote: Two years ago in a CNN poll of 1,200 overseas business travelers who have visited the United States, a full 20% said they would not visit the United States again due to onerous entry procedures at airports, including long processing lines.

So... 1/5th of all business travelers have decided not to come to the US due to long lines and procedures. What do these business travelers do instead? Give up all the business they were doing in the US? That seems like a poor business decision, if it's over a few hours in lines.

Then he goes on about international-to-international transfers via the US. But.. what % of all passengers at US airports are doing this? 5%? The US isn't geographically well-situated for this, so airports are configured to benefit the majority of users -- domestic passengers.

I agree that lines could be shorter and there are areas for improvement, but he seems to be ignoring what type of customer US airports are designed for.