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.
I swear two trips ago, I went through LAX and it was going through renovations. Then the most recent trip, the security procedure and wait was longer than before. I hope that they were renovating areas other than the security process!
In Australia, the wait times seem like they're generally due to low staffing at peak times rather than process or infrastructure.
After 2 weeks jumping through US airports recently (currently at LAX on a Qantas A380 headed home), I can't understand all the unnecessary waiting at security clearance.
I've rarely waited longer than 5 minutes to clear security at any airport in Australia, the queues flow quickly and efficiently- cf. my recent experiences at LAX, Charlotte Douglas and JFK where I made sure I was turning up 3 hours early for domestic flights, and still came close to missing at JFK despite having a priority line through frequent flier level.
What a joke. The procedures are unnecessary and demeaning.
It looks like they could improve efficiency by just having a longer conveyor for the XR machine! Pathetic.
Missed a flight at LAX by two minutes the other week despite showing up almost two hours early. Wasn't going to be enough time to get through security/etc. Very frustrating.
Was just thinking about longer conveyor belts too. The body scanner is rarely a chokepoint. Seems to be either the guy manning the x-ray machine, or people loading/unloading on the conveyor.
Flying back into Adelaide on an international flight was the most horrible experience I've had at any airport anywhere.
Maybe it was the 7 staff standing around behind the 2 desks processing a full plane of people?
Or maybe the other people whose job it seemed to be to threaten anyone who took their phone out with a $10,000 fine?
Or the yet-more-people walking around in the luggage reclaim section checking something so that then you can queue to have another person check the same thing to choose what other queue you can get into.
I've found US and European immigration much better.
I think the scale in Adelaide means that they just don't handle the rise and fall in demand well without spending more on staff. That said, I'm sure it could be done better. Maybe get the beagles to man a desk during peak times.
I am actually a little surprised that there are direct international flights coming into Adelaide. I mean, I guess it makes sense in retrospect but my initial thought would be that getting to Adelaide would involve a stop a Brisbane, Perth or maybe Sydney.
LAX is a nightmare. I had one experience where I had to change terminals quickly because my first flight was late. There was something wrong with the bus. So I found myself running, in a suit and dragging my carry-on, across the parking lot at 1am. Dirty, dark, depressing and loud is LAX.
On the other end is YVR, perhaps the best airport in north america.
Most US phones are either locked to a single provider or only have full radio support for a single provider. Most US customers don't even know what a SIM is. So, shops like that are completely uncommon here. Unlike Europe where everything just works, we have 4 separate major mobile networks (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint) that use separate and incompatible technology. "Competition" beat out standardization here and we all suffer for it. Depending on where you are from and what kind of phone you have, there's a good chance your phone wouldn't even work here with a SIM anyway.
You'll want to find the nearest AT&T or T-Mobile store as those are the two networks that support semi-standard 3G. Note that they both use unique radio networks so you'll need to check what bands your phone supports and what bands each provider supports in a given area for compatibility. Yes, it really is this stupid here.
If you're in London Heathrow airport, there are vending machines that sell a ready-to-go pre-activated pre-paid all-sizes SIM card from Three, for £20. It gives you 30 days of near-unlimited roaming to 19 countries including in the USA where it uses AT&T and T-Mobile.
The only catch is tethering is not allowed. Oh, and you won't have a local phone number. But if you really want a local phone, your best bet is to pick up a hilariously cheap disposable phone from a retail store.
If you're from the US and you have T-Mobile you get free roaming almost everywhere...at 2G. I ended up buying a datapass which gives you LTE if possible at 50 usd...for 500 MB for two weeks. I ended up using it all, but hey, even when that was gone, I could still connect albeit slowly.
Last week, I used it across London, Singapore, and Seoul. It was a god-send without having to buy a new SIM...yes, it used my old number, from what I understand.
EDIT: The free 2G is real...no extra fees. It's free data (out of your usual plan) and texts, but I think it's a couple of cents for calls, as if I give a shit about that.
I think the issue regarding different bands is generally overstated. Most phones are sold globally and I've never had an issue with German phones in the US or an US phone anywhere abroad.
At least my T-Mobile worked in Canada including data and all. My co-workers were surprised by it threatening I'd get a huge bill at the end of the month (which didn't happen).
The gate area overcrowding is odd. The airport administrators know how many people go on an airplane, then put about 80-90% of the required seating in place. It seems to be a deliberate failure.
I suppose you can multiplex seats between adjacent gates by making sure you don't schedule flights at the same time, but I see that not happening. And generally you can't hear the announcements from the adjacent gate.
Vancouver airport YVR is fantastic. It has a magical calming feel. They used to charge $15 to every passenger before they went through security as an airport improvement fee. I can't believe that now that renovations are done they no longer collect the fee, but it is true.
User pays.
And as an added bonus you can take a train right to downtown in 22 minutes
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.
In Canada, it's $50 for 5 years of Nexus which entitles someone to quicker security lines in the US and Canada, quicker border entry, and more.
At $10/year (for the amount I fly per year, it works out to roughly 25 cents per leg of travel), I can't really think of anything more cost efficient to save that much time, stress, etc.
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.)
But for Facebook and Google, I'm paying (with my information) their solution to big problems in the world. For Global Entry, you're trading information for a solution to a problem they created.
Getting violated once in a somewhat professional manner is better than getting violated unprofessionally every time you fly or re-enter the country. At least that's what I told myself when I got Global Entry.
>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.
Most local airports without as much traffic tend to better.
Small town airports tend to be great, but expensive to fly to/from. No lines, very clean, almost no walking, plenty of seating, nice staff, pretty nice interior, cheap parking. Even if the airport was old, the lack of bullshit is great.
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?
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.
Yeah I was just gonna say, I went to Beijing for the first time, and as I was leaving I thought to myself, "well the line is long and insanely compacted (people crowding forward into every open nook and cranny within the cordon), but at least it's not going to have the American bullshit".
And I was right in the sense that they don't make you take your shoes off or put you through the naked photo machine. However, the inconspicuous bag inspector literally disassembled my entire backpack, dumped everything out on the table in the most disorganized fashion possible, then literally walked away without saying a word leaving me 10 minutes to repack everything. That and they took away my post-security water on the jetway boarding the plane (apparently they only do this on US-bound flights though).
I really don't understand the post-security water issue. I got in an argument with a security person at the Hong Kong airport over this. They claimed it's a requirement by the US government and showed me some document that described rules similar to what we see in the US. So I argued that they are reading the document wrong and got rather worked up till my wife started to pull me away because she was afraid I would get arrested.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
You wouldn't be saying that if you were forced to stand near the gate lounge because large numbers of sleeping people were monopolising all the available seats.
Those people paid for tickets same as you, their travels have worn them out enough that they want to sleep in a public place, they're stuck in airport limbo long enough to actually go to sleep, and you think they are "monopolizing" a resource of which you are more deserving... why, exactly? What do you imagine they should have done instead?
Why can't you just walk a few gates down to one with an open seat?
I think the correct response then is especially in security for long layovers: cheap bunks for commuters to sleep in. Why not profit off the supposed "bums"?
But yes, they'd have to be pretty cheap, but make them cheap enough and even the most comfortable terminal chairs will be less preferable to a couple of bucks for an hours sleep on a mediocre bunk.
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?
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.
Perhaps. The TSA is obviously a big problem for American airports. I'm just saying that I can't think of a major airport that I've used and felt like it was a good experience, and the major airports I've been in outside of the US have not been substantially better, with the large and notable exception of the [lack of] TSA presence.
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.
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.
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).
"I'm interrogated like a criminal about where I was and what I was doing despite being a US citizen"
This is one where your mileage may vary, but my most unfriendly experiences have been in Canada. Both Toronto and Vancouver. Other countries haven't been spectacular, mostly just sleepy immigration workers. I'd say that the folks in Germany (FRA) were the most cheerful and friendly so far.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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).
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.
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.
"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.
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.
86 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 149 ms ] thread> "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."
But yeah, the dingy and cramped gate areas are just the final insult added to the TSA's already-ruined travel experience.
In Australia, the wait times seem like they're generally due to low staffing at peak times rather than process or infrastructure.
I've rarely waited longer than 5 minutes to clear security at any airport in Australia, the queues flow quickly and efficiently- cf. my recent experiences at LAX, Charlotte Douglas and JFK where I made sure I was turning up 3 hours early for domestic flights, and still came close to missing at JFK despite having a priority line through frequent flier level.
What a joke. The procedures are unnecessary and demeaning.
It looks like they could improve efficiency by just having a longer conveyor for the XR machine! Pathetic.
Was just thinking about longer conveyor belts too. The body scanner is rarely a chokepoint. Seems to be either the guy manning the x-ray machine, or people loading/unloading on the conveyor.
Maybe it was the 7 staff standing around behind the 2 desks processing a full plane of people?
Or maybe the other people whose job it seemed to be to threaten anyone who took their phone out with a $10,000 fine?
Or the yet-more-people walking around in the luggage reclaim section checking something so that then you can queue to have another person check the same thing to choose what other queue you can get into.
I've found US and European immigration much better.
On the other end is YVR, perhaps the best airport in north america.
If you can't have cellular communication when you land... just WTF?! Backwards country.
You'll want to find the nearest AT&T or T-Mobile store as those are the two networks that support semi-standard 3G. Note that they both use unique radio networks so you'll need to check what bands your phone supports and what bands each provider supports in a given area for compatibility. Yes, it really is this stupid here.
If you're in London Heathrow airport, there are vending machines that sell a ready-to-go pre-activated pre-paid all-sizes SIM card from Three, for £20. It gives you 30 days of near-unlimited roaming to 19 countries including in the USA where it uses AT&T and T-Mobile.
The only catch is tethering is not allowed. Oh, and you won't have a local phone number. But if you really want a local phone, your best bet is to pick up a hilariously cheap disposable phone from a retail store.
If you're from the US and you have T-Mobile you get free roaming almost everywhere...at 2G. I ended up buying a datapass which gives you LTE if possible at 50 usd...for 500 MB for two weeks. I ended up using it all, but hey, even when that was gone, I could still connect albeit slowly.
Last week, I used it across London, Singapore, and Seoul. It was a god-send without having to buy a new SIM...yes, it used my old number, from what I understand.
EDIT: The free 2G is real...no extra fees. It's free data (out of your usual plan) and texts, but I think it's a couple of cents for calls, as if I give a shit about that.
I suppose you can multiplex seats between adjacent gates by making sure you don't schedule flights at the same time, but I see that not happening. And generally you can't hear the announcements from the adjacent gate.
User pays.
And as an added bonus you can take a train right to downtown in 22 minutes
The users of airports are the airlines, not passengers.
Airports that charge "improvement fees" are double-dipping; they already charge a per-passenger fee as part of the aircraft handling fees.
There's certainly an ethical debate about paying the government for better service but from a pragmatic standpoint, I can't recommend it enough.
At $10/year (for the amount I fly per year, it works out to roughly 25 cents per leg of travel), I can't really think of anything more cost efficient to save that much time, stress, etc.
(This probably involves giving up less privacy than creating a Facebook or Google account, of course.)
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.
Sometimes the lines end up being just as long, which is frustrating.
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.
Small town airports tend to be great, but expensive to fly to/from. No lines, very clean, almost no walking, plenty of seating, nice staff, pretty nice interior, cheap parking. Even if the airport was old, the lack of bullshit is great.
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.
And I was right in the sense that they don't make you take your shoes off or put you through the naked photo machine. However, the inconspicuous bag inspector literally disassembled my entire backpack, dumped everything out on the table in the most disorganized fashion possible, then literally walked away without saying a word leaving me 10 minutes to repack everything. That and they took away my post-security water on the jetway boarding the plane (apparently they only do this on US-bound flights though).
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.
- 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 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.
Why can't you just walk a few gates down to one with an open seat?
But yes, they'd have to be pretty cheap, but make them cheap enough and even the most comfortable terminal chairs will be less preferable to a couple of bucks for an hours sleep on a mediocre bunk.
I'm a biker/buser though, so I may be biased, if my flippant commment doesn't demostrate that already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle_Airport#Coll...
And they also stole a huge bag of my stuff there, years ago.
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).
This is one where your mileage may vary, but my most unfriendly experiences have been in Canada. Both Toronto and Vancouver. Other countries haven't been spectacular, mostly just sleepy immigration workers. I'd say that the folks in Germany (FRA) were the most cheerful and friendly so far.
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.
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.
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.
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).
http://www.sleepinginairports.net/2015/best-airports-world.h...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_International_Airpor...
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.
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.
I was sure you were gonna say one letter.