The article cites various aviation consultants and airport authorities as pointing out funding and regulation issues that limit the ability to make improvements. Fair enough. But there are so many ways the experience could be made better without significant expenditure.
- Empower airport personnel to care about the airport in the same way we do national monuments, etc. Changi, etc., want to wow foreign visitors. We should have the same mindset.
- Completely streamline and eliminate to maximum feasible extent the omnipresent "security announcements". The infuriatingly grating and condescending messages that begin with "The Transportation Security Administration..." at airports like DCA are somewhere between rage-inducing and dehumanizing.
- Patrick Smith (quoted in the article) has long campaigned against the incredibly loud airport TVs blaring CNN or somesuch, and fortunately, some airports seem to be listening. The rest should as well.
- Seats whose primary purpose is to prevent anyone sleeping there also have the side effect of being quite uncomfortable. Is the sleeping people issue such a big deal that all passengers who want to sit have to pay the price?
There has to be a ton of low-hanging fruit like this which is probably why the U.S. airport experience is so detested - it's a sign of so much negligence that such relatively easy and inexpensive measures are not taken.
I've never understood the recorded announcements. Why are you announcing carry-on liquid limits, or telling people not to park in the loading zones, in the gate areas. Why are you announcing that it's illegal to smoke in the airport, when it's been that way for decades?
>Seats whose primary purpose is to prevent anyone sleeping there
I don't understand this. Post 9/11, anyone who enters the terminal is either a paying customer with an upcoming flight or staff. It's not like a train station where you need to worry about the homeless hanging around.
TL; DR Security theatre makes American airports less efficient, the U.S. government look incompetent and wastes travelers' time.
> "Patrick Smith of Ask the Pilot blog, says...: 'Our security protocols are needlessly tedious, and the connection process for passengers arriving from overseas is horrendously time-consuming. All passengers arriving from other countries are required to clear immigration, re-check their bags, and undergo the Transport Security Administration rigmarole, even if they're merely in transit to a third country.'
Sixty-seven percent of people who fly out of America arrive at a better airport, the Economist estimated last year, after delving into data on more than a million flights."
There were other points too. Our airports are older...like much of our crumbling infrastructure, we don't spend enough to keep them modern and the financing maze between Federal, State and local government makes finding the money to modernize airports more difficult than it has to be. And the airlines oppose increasing the fee added to ticket prices, so improvements can't be financed by travelers.
But yeah, the dingy and cramped gate areas are just the final insult added to the TSA's already-ruined travel experience.
Something not mentioned in the article is the attitude of American staff at airports. American airport staff just seem excessively rude by comparison to any other airport or even service staff outside of airports. There is a sense that displaying power and control is much more important that showing a sense of welcome and humanity to anyone entering/exiting the US.
This. To me, one of the biggest examples is the border police. In Europe manage to do their jobs and be friendly—the guy stamping passports at AMS last month even gave me a restaurant recommendation! Meanwhile, returning to the US, I'm interrogated like a criminal about where I was and what I was doing despite being a US citizen with the clear right to re-enter my own country.
And don't even get me started on the TSA and their insistence on screaming at me to take my phone out of my pocket (as if there are people in the damned elite lane that somehow don't know this already).
Yes that's definitely true. I remember flying from Germany a free years ago and being completely startled by the friendliness of the staff who treated you like normal people. That's quite amazing since friendlies anywhere else in Germany is far behind the US. Clerks at super market checkout lines often won't even look at you, yet airport staff behaves like normal humans.
I don't have any consistent experience with airport staff generally, but when it comes to immigration workers, I've found most countries to be staffed by pleasant, cheerful people, including in the USA.
The one curious exception has been the UK, where I've had a solid run of miserable sods who don't seem to appreciate that anyone would want to visit their country.
Employees of American-flagged airlines tend to be a bit grumpy (with some notable exceptions like Southwest). They've had to put up with layoffs, consolidations, pay cuts, overwork, pensions disappearing, etc. for decades now. This doesn't excuse their attitude, but I understand their frustration.
I can't believe more people don't object to this even on just a pure hygiene basis. Use an airport bathroom, and you've probably stepped on urine. Take a bin where the last guy's shoe soles have been, and you want me to put my laptop there? I mean sure, public spaces always have the possibility of being disgusting, but why require it?
They all suck. At least US airports don't charge you for water, which you can get at a water fountain.
I always used to enjoy sucking down some good, cool water in PDX after a long flight which likely involved the purchase of outrageously priced bottled water at some point in a European airport.
My issue, and it is slight, is the constant presence of the military. It isn't so much the soldiers, and there are lots of them in some airports, it's the drumbeat of announcements declaring their presence. It's the USO announcements every few minutes and the reminder that uniformed military get to board before everyone else. I have plenty of family in the military and have nothing against soldiers, but it only adds to the constant security reminders. We may be in a perpetual war, but do I have to be reminded every five minutes?
Among first world nations, in Asia or West, American airports are an embarrassment. Not just TSA, though that is the worst part. In other parts of the world they are points of pride, they show them off to everyone. Here we just don't care for whatever reason.
I find this is common attitude for all forms of transport that have a tinge of communism...err, shared quality, to them. If it isn't a car or for cars, fuck it, cars are first.
I'm a biker/buser though, so I may be biased, if my flippant commment doesn't demostrate that already.
Why make them better? For many cities/regions you don't have have a choice. You have to fly to that airport. Sometimes you can fly to another, better/newer airport in a big city but then given the price and inconvineince to get to it, might not be worth it. Some people can take the train or drive, but that works for small countries, not for US.
They have nothing to compete with (no hyperloop yet) so there is not much of driver to improve.
Other (Asian) airports are newers as article mentions, they are often used as showcase piece for national pride. It is not just that one locality building it, it is the whole country.
Also out of some European airports, I liked Vienna because it is nice and small. Amsterdam is not too bad. I found Paris CGD and Frankfurt a big dirty mess, not a lot different than say JFK or Dulles (IAD).
Everyone should get Global Entry. It makes the process of getting through immigration relatively painless. Additionally, Global Entry allows you to use the TSA Precheck lines, which are orders of magnitude shorter than the regular security lines. Global Entry also recently implemented the ability to apply for an APEC card, which lets you go through the diplomatic passport line at most Asian airports.
There's certainly an ethical debate about paying the government for better service but from a pragmatic standpoint, I can't recommend it enough.
>There's certainly an ethical debate about paying the government for better service
What's far more offensive to me is that you have to supply your biometric information, submit yourself to an examination by a government agent in a review center, and submit to being photographed and fingerprinted like you are a criminal. In a free society citizens should be able to travel freely with being extorted, harassed, or otherwise molested by the government.
However, getting Global Entry is a hassle. You have to call ICE, make an appointment to go to an airport, go there, get fingerprinted, photographed, and retina scanned, get asked some questions about your background, and then wait for a card to be mailed to you.
(This probably involves giving up less privacy than creating a Facebook or Google account, of course.)
If you want to see airport security done right, check out Dublin. That's in Ireland, a country which has actually experienced domestic terrorism.
And even better experience is Keflavik in Iceland (only separated from Ireland by one sea), where the only exposure you have to immigration/customs is the passport office.
Of course in both cases if you are a US citizen or travelling to the US you have extra checks to go through. Poor bastards.
But the TSA us the reason people hate the USA, not the crumbling crappy infrastructure.
When I fly internationally, I always try for SFO to "somewhere not US near destination". Since I mostly fly to Europe and use Star alliance; that is Frankfurt or Munich, usually -- LH or UA metal.
For transitioning, MUC is way better (smaller) than FRA.
On return, I find the hoops necessary at foreign airports imposed on US bound flights silly (extra questions, sometimes extra security, etc).
That said, with Global Entry, hitting the kiosk, handing over a slip and skipping a process that could be near 90min is gold.
Most US airports are better than Heathrow, and I consider the few European airports I've been in to be on par with US airports (security measures aside). Outside of New York and Chicago airports I haven't had a lot of complaints (although I've somehow avoided LAX which I hear is bad). I like a lot of US airports: SFO, OAK, SJC, ABQ, DEN, MSP, ATL have all been decent to me over the years.
Maybe the old Heathrow terminals but the new Heathrow terminals are much better than most US airports I've been in.
Most of my travel is to SFO, which is great by US standards but I've also been through Boston, Miami & Austin in the last year and the departure zones are pretty awful.
"Why do so many people hate US airports?" There seems to be a basic mismatch of expectations regarding air travel. We want cheap and safe air travel (including safety from terrorism). Compared to the 1960s when jet travel really started ticket prices have dropped by about 50% and flights are vastly safer. It's now quite easy to travel between all large US cities by air. By and large customers got what they asked for.
The down side is that aircraft and airports are crowded (better utilization) and there's far more security (leaving aside TSA issues there's no obvious alternative to keep terrorists off flights).
Maybe the answer is just to adjust our expectations a bit. If I get to my destination in one piece and roughly on time the airport does not make a lot of difference. It's not as if most of us live there.
Last summer I was patted by some morons at an American airport. They thought I'm hiding something under my T-shirt on my shoulders. It was just my bones draped by the cloth: the old scapulae and clavicles. Distance running man; try it!
For counterpoint, to see what is possible, check out YVR. Like most US airports it is almost 50 years old, subject to an identical security regime (including American immigration people as canadians pre-clear US immigration) yet is a fantastic airport.
Seems like the title sound be
"why do people hate airports outside of China" or maybe "why do people hate old airports"
USA doesn't have a monopoly on security theater, nor do they have a monopoly on long lines. Can our airports be better?absolutely but can so airports around the world.
Banning TSA would be a huge step in the right direction.
I'd avoid conflating South/East Asia with China. The only airport the article cites in China is HK airport, and even that is ambiguous. In fact, actual Chinese airports are notorious for delay.
In my experience Chinese airports are pretty horrendous. Here in Australia, airport security is quite reasonable and unless there's major disruption lines are always fairly short.
Funny coming from the BBC. UK airports might be worse. Passport control to enter AND exit (common, but not in US). Not accepting EU visas. Recheck of carryon bags for transit passengers, with more stringent liquids requirements than US/Canada. Higher prices.
Yes! One of the slowest immigration lines I've ever been in was in Manchester. They processed all EU citizens before proceeding any non-EU travelers and were incredibly slow.
I was stuck in Singapore's Changi Airport on a 22hr layover once. It is the best: multiple gardens, hotels, free movie theaters, free Xbox 360 & PlayStation 3, a swimming pool, and artwork everywhere. US airports can't compare.
[+] [-] ThenAsNow|10 years ago|reply
- Empower airport personnel to care about the airport in the same way we do national monuments, etc. Changi, etc., want to wow foreign visitors. We should have the same mindset.
- Completely streamline and eliminate to maximum feasible extent the omnipresent "security announcements". The infuriatingly grating and condescending messages that begin with "The Transportation Security Administration..." at airports like DCA are somewhere between rage-inducing and dehumanizing.
- Patrick Smith (quoted in the article) has long campaigned against the incredibly loud airport TVs blaring CNN or somesuch, and fortunately, some airports seem to be listening. The rest should as well.
- Seats whose primary purpose is to prevent anyone sleeping there also have the side effect of being quite uncomfortable. Is the sleeping people issue such a big deal that all passengers who want to sit have to pay the price?
There has to be a ton of low-hanging fruit like this which is probably why the U.S. airport experience is so detested - it's a sign of so much negligence that such relatively easy and inexpensive measures are not taken.
[+] [-] smelendez|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] superuser2|10 years ago|reply
I don't understand this. Post 9/11, anyone who enters the terminal is either a paying customer with an upcoming flight or staff. It's not like a train station where you need to worry about the homeless hanging around.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|10 years ago|reply
> "Patrick Smith of Ask the Pilot blog, says...: 'Our security protocols are needlessly tedious, and the connection process for passengers arriving from overseas is horrendously time-consuming. All passengers arriving from other countries are required to clear immigration, re-check their bags, and undergo the Transport Security Administration rigmarole, even if they're merely in transit to a third country.'
Sixty-seven percent of people who fly out of America arrive at a better airport, the Economist estimated last year, after delving into data on more than a million flights."
[+] [-] curun1r|10 years ago|reply
But yeah, the dingy and cramped gate areas are just the final insult added to the TSA's already-ruined travel experience.
[+] [-] evolve2k|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] envy2|10 years ago|reply
And don't even get me started on the TSA and their insistence on screaming at me to take my phone out of my pocket (as if there are people in the damned elite lane that somehow don't know this already).
[+] [-] ajmurmann|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sjwright|10 years ago|reply
The one curious exception has been the UK, where I've had a solid run of miserable sods who don't seem to appreciate that anyone would want to visit their country.
[+] [-] dreamcompiler|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MAGZine|10 years ago|reply
Now that I'm a Nexus Pass holder (US/CAN border) and eligible for TSA pre-check it's not such a big deal but damn US airports are way overdone.
[+] [-] ThenAsNow|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prawn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidw|10 years ago|reply
They all suck. At least US airports don't charge you for water, which you can get at a water fountain.
I always used to enjoy sucking down some good, cool water in PDX after a long flight which likely involved the purchase of outrageously priced bottled water at some point in a European airport.
[+] [-] mrexroad|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orthoganol|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noobermin|10 years ago|reply
I'm a biker/buser though, so I may be biased, if my flippant commment doesn't demostrate that already.
[+] [-] rdtsc|10 years ago|reply
They have nothing to compete with (no hyperloop yet) so there is not much of driver to improve.
Other (Asian) airports are newers as article mentions, they are often used as showcase piece for national pride. It is not just that one locality building it, it is the whole country.
Also out of some European airports, I liked Vienna because it is nice and small. Amsterdam is not too bad. I found Paris CGD and Frankfurt a big dirty mess, not a lot different than say JFK or Dulles (IAD).
[+] [-] howlingfantods|10 years ago|reply
There's certainly an ethical debate about paying the government for better service but from a pragmatic standpoint, I can't recommend it enough.
[+] [-] StanislavPetrov|10 years ago|reply
What's far more offensive to me is that you have to supply your biometric information, submit yourself to an examination by a government agent in a review center, and submit to being photographed and fingerprinted like you are a criminal. In a free society citizens should be able to travel freely with being extorted, harassed, or otherwise molested by the government.
[+] [-] mr337|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|10 years ago|reply
(This probably involves giving up less privacy than creating a Facebook or Google account, of course.)
[+] [-] manicdee|10 years ago|reply
And even better experience is Keflavik in Iceland (only separated from Ireland by one sea), where the only exposure you have to immigration/customs is the passport office.
Of course in both cases if you are a US citizen or travelling to the US you have extra checks to go through. Poor bastards.
But the TSA us the reason people hate the USA, not the crumbling crappy infrastructure.
[+] [-] oneloop|10 years ago|reply
I was sure you were gonna say one letter.
[+] [-] jmspring|10 years ago|reply
For transitioning, MUC is way better (smaller) than FRA.
On return, I find the hoops necessary at foreign airports imposed on US bound flights silly (extra questions, sometimes extra security, etc).
That said, with Global Entry, hitting the kiosk, handing over a slip and skipping a process that could be near 90min is gold.
[+] [-] dasil003|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] youngtaff|10 years ago|reply
Most of my travel is to SFO, which is great by US standards but I've also been through Boston, Miami & Austin in the last year and the departure zones are pretty awful.
[+] [-] hodgesrm|10 years ago|reply
The down side is that aircraft and airports are crowded (better utilization) and there's far more security (leaving aside TSA issues there's no obvious alternative to keep terrorists off flights).
Maybe the answer is just to adjust our expectations a bit. If I get to my destination in one piece and roughly on time the airport does not make a lot of difference. It's not as if most of us live there.
[+] [-] ajmurmann|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hiphipjorge|10 years ago|reply
I'd buy that. Well, except for the fact that some light rain will cause 4 delays on all flight. But apart from that, it's a pretty good airport.
[+] [-] eip|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazinator|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|10 years ago|reply
http://www.sleepinginairports.net/2015/best-airports-world.h...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_International_Airpor...
[+] [-] chrismcb|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] howlingfantods|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajdlinux|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Scoundreller|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajmurmann|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eosrei|10 years ago|reply