Why do so many people hate US airports? | Hacker News Reader

Why do so many people hate US airports?

bbc.com

18 pointshvo20 comments

Not only do US airports make me take my shoes off, many of them now have the "naked picture machines" instead of regular metal detectors. I was presented with those twice recently. The first time I went through it, then afterward the attendant frisked me anyway, including an incredibly awkward "search" of my hair. If they need to X-ray my shoes and search my hair by hand, what use is the naked picture machine?

So the second time I opted out. I was lucky enough to get a gentleman who was quite amicable and professional. And I served as a spectacle for the other passengers--a visible warning of what awaited them if they decided not to let the TSA see inside their clothes.

On another flight, I visited the Delta business class lounge. This was the first and only time I encountered a business class lounge with no actual food inside. British has a freaking restaurant in some of theirs. Delta had potato chips and similar stuff that nobody should eat, much less people about to sit for a dozen hours. So I went out, bought some food, and brought it back. The counter staff abruptly informed me that outside food is not allowed. Only pure junk food may be consumed in the Delta lounge!

Once I arrived late at Boston Logan airport, my colleague forgot to fill out the back of the then used green "I'm a terrorist nor a Nazi between 39-45" form (the ESTA form). The guy at the desk than screamed at the top of his lungs: "The next one to forget to fill out the back of his form I'll send them back to their home country!!!"

What a warm welcome to the US :). The rest of the Americans were warm, welcoming and very helpful whenever I whipped a map out though :).

I always think that the immigration guys at airports get selected for being the most obnoxious a...holes they can find. I have seen a lot of instances of really bad behavior like berating tourists that don't speak English well for not filling out the forms perfectly right.

I remember I wanted to visit a friend who was supposed to pick me up at SFO airport. I didn't know his address so I didn't fill the destination address field. The immigration guy just sent me back in line without listening to any explanation. Luckily one of the cleaners told me to fill in "Hilton, San Francisco"and I finally got through. I can't even imagine how somebody who has traveled less and speaks English not as well could handle the situation.

It really gives the US a bad image.

No sterile transit [1]. That's it for me. That's why I will pay extra to get a flight that does not require changing within the US.

Everywhere else [2], if I am on my way from country A to country C and will be changing aircraft in country B, I follow the sign for "International Transfers" and effectively just walk from the gate at which I got off one aircraft to the gate at which I will get on another (an airport in Europe somewhere - can't recall which one - even managed to provide me with sterile transport to another terminal to do this; half the train was isolated by locked doors from the other half, and my side of the platform had different entrances and exits that were already within the security-checked section).

No security checks necessary because I went through them in airport A, no immigration because I'm not entering country B. To force me to go through immigration and then turn around and come back through the entire security theatre again is such a massive waste of everyone's time and resources. So painfully frustrating.

[1] I hear that a handful of US airports can actually manage this, but generally not. I recall having to go through immigration at JFK many years ago purely to be able to walk across the concourse and go back through the system again, just to change plane. What a massive waste of everyone's time and money.

[2] Not quite everywhere else. Of all airports, I had to go back around through some security in Dubai just yesterday. Which is utterly ridiculous, as Dubai airport is a shiny modern airport that is in many other ways very good.

Honestly, I've traveled quiet a lot the last year in Japan, China, Switzerland, Germany, Canada, USA, Sweden, London... The american airports are not always pleasant (this is especially due to over arrogant security personnel). But they are at least efficient. My worst experience in term of waiting lines (mainly at the boarder) was Montreal, Tokyo and Beijing...

I really don't get the hate for the Dulles buggies. I don't find that it takes any longer for me to go between terminals at Dulles versus other airports. I think I've had to wait more than 5 minutes for one to leave once in over 100 flights in/out of Dulles.

It is really a shame that American airports usually have no connection to public transport.

Where have you experienced this? Every major city I've flown to has a terminal for public transport inside the airport

San Diego, California. No connection other than cabs, limos or buses. Sure would be nice if the trolley went there. The cab companies would scream bloody murder, but they're under assault anyway.

Airports are a good indicator of the health of the country's infrastructure. If the airports are bad, it's very likely that the country's roads and bridges are bad too.

High priced food and Internet service in the terminals due to the captive audience effect. I suspect if business travel expenses were made non-deductible, this would change very quickly.

It is unfair to compare the US to smaller countries that may have only 1 or 2 international airports (e.g. Singapore or Hong Kong). They can pour all of their resources into fewer airports while the US has at least 400 hundred international airports, with at least 100 of those being major airports like JFK or LAX.

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'major', but if you can name more than 20 I'd be surprised.

Also, the thing that makes US airports unpleasant is not necessarily the same as the irritant in other places. Travelling through the US gives us the indignity of the TSA's security theatre. But take a trip through a British airport and you really see capitalism tooth-and-nail. I think this the result of the sell-off of the airports to a dutch corporation several years ago, and the resulting dept-repayment load.

The only airport I've been in, that is actually a pleasant place to hang out for a couple of hours is CDG.

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'major', but if you can name more than 20 I'd be surprised.

At least half of the states have at least 1 major international airport, with some having 2 or more. For example, Hawaii has Honolulu, Florida has Orlando and Miami. Nevada has McCarran, etc.

My point us that the US has lots of international entrypoints, so each airport has to be less grand than say a Hong Kong or Singapore, where that is the only airport where you can enter. For them that single airport has to be a flagship, so they put hotels and butterfly gardens, etc. Phoenix Sky Harbor will never get anything like that, so it can never compete.

Airports don't have to compete on butterfly gardens. They can compete on basic competence and being able to efficiently and quickly allow people to get through it, and not being a total misery to have to wait in for a few hours when transiting. Singapore beats the crap out of US airports on that and also has a nice butterfly garden to look at. You could put a nice butterfly garden in JFK and JFK would still be a miserable, frustrating experience; nobody would even look at the butterfly garden because they'd burn all their time in just trying to get through the airport.

Holy crap you're not kidding. I was in Heathrow's new terminal recently (T2) and it's crammed with stores that would make Thorstein Vleben swoon. MIA is the same way now.

My bigger annoyance with British airports is the whole "wait near the shops until it's boarding time and then we'll tell you what gate you are at". And once you move to the gate you can't access the shops anymore.

It's not unfair. If anything, the US should be able to benefit from economies of scale and significantly more experience to make X world-class airports for less than X times the price of Singapore's single international airport.

Who would pay for it? Airports are usually controlled by local entities. Would Los Angeles World Airports be able to compete with the Government of Singapore?

So... US airports are too big and national to be considered small and local, but also too small and local to be considered big and national?

Whenever there’s an article proclaiming education or healthcare or airports or fill-in-the-blank are better in another country, this "oh, well, they are a small country and you can’t compare them" arguments gets dusted off again.

If we have 1 major airport per 10 million people (made up nuumber) and so does another country, how does that argument make sense? With a big country, economies of scale should lead to even better airports but it doesn’t.

IHMO, this is just an excuse to refuse to learn from the example of other countries, regardless of size. A country so large should be even better at doing what small countries do well. Especially showing basic human decency and humanity toward other members of their species.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com