Until the U.S. get their act together regarding sterile transit, the international airports are going to continue to be forced to operate effectively with one hand tied behind their back. The sheer inefficiency of forcing everyone passing through to go through arrivals and then departures is ridiculous and must put a stupid, utterly unnecessary strain on the airport.
As an aside, I went through Changi airport (the current number one) and it really is lovely. I watched the Koi being fed and wandered around their butterfly garden in Terminal 2.
If the U.S. does in fact have sterile transit and I'm just misinformed, I stand by to be corrected :)
Changi airport is exactly what airports should be like. It's a nice place to be instead of a horrible warehouse with lots of signs warning you that you're an accidental bottle of water away from being labelled a terrorist.
I see the TSA, they go through my stuff, they treat me like a terrorist, I wonder if they're going to steal something, they enforce arbitrary rules at their discretion, they take up my time, the whole thing is very unpleasant.
> The law creates a presumption of trafficking for certain threshold amounts, e.g. 30 grams of cannabis. It also creates a presumption that a person possesses drugs if he possesses the keys to a premises containing the drugs, and that "Any person found in or escaping from any place or premises which is proved or presumed to be used for the purpose of smoking or administering a controlled drug shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been smoking or administering a controlled drug in that place or premises."
That's not what it says. It says you are presumed to be in possession of drugs if you have the keys to somewhere containing the drugs. Is that a misread, or do you know of a law that states having drugs in your house is considered evidence of trafficking?
You are considered in possession if you have the keys to a property that contains a drug.
You are considered to be trafficking if you possess a certain quantity of that drug.
There is a mandatory death sentence if the quantity of the drug that you "possess" for trafficking is over a certain amount. In the case of cannabis it's over 500 g.
Singapore == scary laws.
People go to prison in some countries for grains of cannabis resin stuck to the sole of their shoe even if they have no trace of cannabis in their system.
Imagine the ease of getting someone legally murdered with 15g (less than a tablespoonful) of heroin, simply by getting it in/on their car or hotel room. Journalists in Singapore probably don't sleep very well.
I'd go for LSD, where in the US, you're charged with possession of the media as though it were the drug. A few sugar cubes later and you're in prison for life.
I've been to both Changi and SFO - in SFO i walked more or less straight from the plane and out. Same experience when I departed. In Changi i was detained because of reasons they would not tell me. I was placed in a room with a lot of seats and was not allowed to make phone calls or ask any questions. At one point I stood up to walk to the desk and ask why I was detained and they immediately said I had to sit down and be quiet.
Nonsense, I flew out of Changi last week and can't recall a single sign warning about the death penalty for drug trafficking.
The warning is on the customs form that you fill in when you fly into Singapore, as you'd expect. But comparing it to the TSA is facile as they're unavoidable if you're flying in the US.
There's one large warning sign as you freely exit the baggage claim area and walk out of the airport completely unimpeded and without additional queues.
> every other sign in that airport reads "death for drug traffickers"
Yeah, a few signs and only a light touch of enforcement. Coming in you show your passport, glance at the sign, and walk straight out. Done. On return, you show your passport, and a quick shoes-on bag screening at the gate. Queuing is rare and short.
Compare that to USA airports where you queue for hours, get 20 questions at immigration (admittedly by cheerful and well mannered staff), and go through more queues. On return you queue for hours, take various random items of clothing off, get irradiated, and generally pushed around and looked at suspiciously.
Other issues such as immigration process is a major cause of discontent at US aiirports when compared with other countries immigration workflow, particularly for non-locals.
This is true - entering the US can be a very painful experience (despite SFO being quite a nice airport I've still had a two hour plus wait on occasion), but Heathrow was just as bad last year at certain points, with two hour plus waits to clear immigration.
They've probably ranked up the value of diversified shopping. They would explain why rubbish large airports get ranked miles above small, efficient Australian and Scandi airports.
Heathrow has the most aggressive Skytrax campaigning I've seen (note: some compared with nearly none) in the 7 of the top 10 airports I've been to, which might have something to do with it. It's definitely not in the same league as the likes of Incheon and Hong Kong in my experience.
One serious issue in Heathrow is that gate numbers are not shown (not even printed on your boarding pass) until 30 minutes before departure, and the gates are supposed to close 15 minutes before departure, but it takes 20 minutes to walk to some of the gates from the waiting area. Of course they bend the rules so that people make it to their flights, but what happens when they don't?
Possibly because they got attention prior to the 2010 Football World Cup. Always good to see that some money goes to meaningful infrastructure projects.
I've been to many of the top airports listed. Honestly after a while, they are all pretty much the same. I didn't think Narita or Incheon had better airports than Dallas or Atlanta. The only thing I can think of is that people in American airports get annoyed at the extra security.
That's odd, whenever I flew to SFO I had a great time. The TSA agents were more than happy to give me free massages, which you don't see anywhere else.
Think you're joking, but I came here to write - SFO is the best I can remember. Easy in and out, free wifi that actually worked and desks with power cords to use it from, regular and easy-to-understand shuttle bus system with helpful staff around, good access to cheap car hire and trains to town. Belongs miles ahead of Abu Dhabi. I bet Californians are a pickier bunch than the average airport visitor :)
I know everything you're saying is tongue-in-cheek, but I will point out to those who may not be 'in the know' that you can always opt out of any intrusive scan for a pat-down instead. Perhaps not any more comfortable, at least the sweaty TSA agent brushing your inner thigh is just as uncomfortable as you are. Hopefully.
I've always opted out, hence the "free massage" thing. They always half-heartedly try to intimidate you by not allowing you access to your things, and they go through the motions of a pat down. It depends on the employee, but it was definitely better than the scanner.
I know most HN readers won't have too much experience with it, but the airport in Indianapolis is probably the best I've seen.
No traffic to the airport, in & out of security in 5 minutes (longest I've waited is 10 minutes), free wifi AND a TSA agent smiled at me. It's like another world.
SFO has scanners, at least for international flights. No idea whether they are operated by the TSA though.
The airport itself is pretty nice by the way, if you forget about going through security. I haven't travelled to any other US airports, but SFO is way better than some of the (mostly smaller) European airports I've been.
It's surprising that the article doesn't mention the absolutely over-the-top security procedures in American airports.
I've been to Changi and Incheon, security was fast and smooth, and then you had waiting spaces with comfortable armchairs, nice exhibitions and beautiful gardens. In US airports the security process is slow, they confiscate your snow globes for no apparent reason, and the PA system constantly reminds you that you have to be watchful because the alert level is orange (or it was like that a few years ago, at least). And the article seems to think that what they need to make us feel better is to invest some money on having better shops...
American airports generally do a bad job is many areas. The number and access to electrical outlets can be awful. WiFi is usually nonexistent or for-fee and lame. And food is often just sad.
I think the difference is that outside the US the interested parties have decided to make airports a good, efficient experience. In the US, anything controlled by the government is low budget by choice and design, and anything above the minimum is left to the supposedly superior "private sector." But apparently there's no money in "good airport experience" for the private sector and we're all left to suck air.
My wife is French and after arriving at Logan, Airport from Paris after an overnight flight, we both waited in the "Non-US Citizen" line. We waited over two hours for our turn along with everyone else, just to get a stamp. The agent then thought my wife's picture wasn't perfect so they detained us to verify her identity. We were were subjected to stupid and unnecessary abusive questioning until they realized they were obviously wrong and let us go. So 3+ hours of nonsense and they let us go.
I realize that most people don't have to go through detention, but how can adding ~2 hours unnecessarily after (typically long and difficult) international travel be a good idea? It's a self-defeating waste. Investment in speeding up the process would no-doubt be returned to the economy and in better-will.
I dunno. I spent 2 1/2 hours in a line at Heathrow for "Non-EU" citizens because only one agent had been assigned to us for the entire 747. The flight got in just before 10, so I missed the last train ride into London. Had to spend the night in the airport because I couldn't afford the 60 pound taxi ride in.
I don't think the US has the monopoly on crappy government services.
Yes, but there was general outrage at the terrible queues at Heathrow - e.g. see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18672286 it was raised in Parliament even, everyone said it was unacceptable and it was then fixed.
Is the poor service in the US seen as a problem that's being sorted? Or just accepted?
> Is the poor service in the US seen as a problem that's being sorted? Or just accepted?
I think differences in acceptance vs. verbalized outrage are less important than whether things actually get fixed. (I'll definitely admit, though, that I'm irked by the acceptance I've seen among fellow Americans.) Do you know whether wait times actually went down substantially, or just that "something was done"?
A key difference: the problems at LHR with the UK Border Agency stem from public employees effectively holding travelers hostage to extort higher pay whereas the the terrible way DHS treats foreigners is so by design.
No, the DHS treats citizens like that too. My understanding is that it's purely a psychological technique to extract more truthful stories. People have plenty of time on the plane to practice their cock and bull stories, but when some key detail changes during their interview, they aren't so good at thinking on their feet and they end up being caught in a lie. "This picture doesn't look like you" is the oldest trick in the book. If the customs agent really thought the picture didn't look like you, he wouldn't have told you. You would have been led away without question. What he really wants to do is get you on the defensive where you're less likely to remember your pre-rehearsed story.
(If you ever want to watch Customs in action for four hours, take the train between the US and Canada.)
Well I was in the "US Citizen" line for about an hour before my turn came. At which point I had to stand there for about 20-30 minutes with my wife and child while the agent types on his computer. Finally, he takes us into the "abuse room" because apparently I have a "common name". I had to sit in this room for about 2 hours, listening to people take all kinds of horrible abuse. At the end they called me up and said "common name".... that was it. I have not been back to my country of birth since that trip.
My experience with JFK airport (New York) is not so good, too. It's very chaotic, staff at the helpdesk doesn't listen to you questions but fill in what they think you want, everybody seems to be at their first day on the job, they can only do what their screen says, some places are dark (no lights), airline desks are/seem to be made from cardboard, etcetera.
What do people love so much about Incheon Airport (South Korea)? I've been there at least a dozen times or more and never noticed anything special about it. It's better than U.S. airports for sure but wouldn't really imagine it as a top spot or even #2.
Reading this headline while sitting at Newark Airport, I wholeheartedly agree. An easy proxy for airport quality seems to be cleanliness and comfort of the bathrooms. In the US they usually are too small, there is no privacy and they are frequently dirty.
These rankings are wrong - the nightmare that is Heathrow should not come ahead of Copenhagen, which is one of the most convenient and pleasant airports I have used.
Just a note, I have been several airports in the top 50 and I certainly do not agree with the rank. I don't know how they measured it, but I don't understand how Singapore can rank that high, I found it close to terrible while visiting. Furthermore, I would rank Copenhagen much higher than e.g. Zürich.
I don't use lounges, perhaps they represent a major part of the rank.
One thing that stood out to me is Lima airport being top 30. That airport unless it was completely overhauled in the last 2 years was a huge POS. I say that because half the flights are hours delayed every time I have flown there, the place was filthy each time I visited, and felt like a regional airport not a world class one.
From the top 10 airports in this list one which I frequent often is Zurich Airport.
I'd like to say that one of the things I really like about it is that it's really intuitive and a person can navigate easily to the gate he needs to be and the personnel is really kind.
And when I enter the EU through this airport, as a Non-EU citizen, in average I pass this checking procedure in 5-10 minutes (there is always more than one agent and long lines don't form).
59 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadAs an aside, I went through Changi airport (the current number one) and it really is lovely. I watched the Koi being fed and wandered around their butterfly garden in Terminal 2.
If the U.S. does in fact have sterile transit and I'm just misinformed, I stand by to be corrected :)
I see the sign, it doesn't affect me, I am happy.
I see the TSA, they go through my stuff, they treat me like a terrorist, I wonder if they're going to steal something, they enforce arbitrary rules at their discretion, they take up my time, the whole thing is very unpleasant.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_(Singapore...)
> The law creates a presumption of trafficking for certain threshold amounts, e.g. 30 grams of cannabis. It also creates a presumption that a person possesses drugs if he possesses the keys to a premises containing the drugs, and that "Any person found in or escaping from any place or premises which is proved or presumed to be used for the purpose of smoking or administering a controlled drug shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been smoking or administering a controlled drug in that place or premises."
You are considered to be trafficking if you possess a certain quantity of that drug.
There is a mandatory death sentence if the quantity of the drug that you "possess" for trafficking is over a certain amount. In the case of cannabis it's over 500 g.
Singapore == scary laws.
People go to prison in some countries for grains of cannabis resin stuck to the sole of their shoe even if they have no trace of cannabis in their system.
The warning is on the customs form that you fill in when you fly into Singapore, as you'd expect. But comparing it to the TSA is facile as they're unavoidable if you're flying in the US.
Yeah, a few signs and only a light touch of enforcement. Coming in you show your passport, glance at the sign, and walk straight out. Done. On return, you show your passport, and a quick shoes-on bag screening at the gate. Queuing is rare and short.
Compare that to USA airports where you queue for hours, get 20 questions at immigration (admittedly by cheerful and well mannered staff), and go through more queues. On return you queue for hours, take various random items of clothing off, get irradiated, and generally pushed around and looked at suspiciously.
Yeah, I'll take the signs.
One serious issue in Heathrow is that gate numbers are not shown (not even printed on your boarding pass) until 30 minutes before departure, and the gates are supposed to close 15 minutes before departure, but it takes 20 minutes to walk to some of the gates from the waiting area. Of course they bend the rules so that people make it to their flights, but what happens when they don't?
No traffic to the airport, in & out of security in 5 minutes (longest I've waited is 10 minutes), free wifi AND a TSA agent smiled at me. It's like another world.
See --> http://www.flysfo.com/web/page/atsfo/saf-sec/
The airport itself is pretty nice by the way, if you forget about going through security. I haven't travelled to any other US airports, but SFO is way better than some of the (mostly smaller) European airports I've been.
I've been to Changi and Incheon, security was fast and smooth, and then you had waiting spaces with comfortable armchairs, nice exhibitions and beautiful gardens. In US airports the security process is slow, they confiscate your snow globes for no apparent reason, and the PA system constantly reminds you that you have to be watchful because the alert level is orange (or it was like that a few years ago, at least). And the article seems to think that what they need to make us feel better is to invest some money on having better shops...
American airports generally do a bad job is many areas. The number and access to electrical outlets can be awful. WiFi is usually nonexistent or for-fee and lame. And food is often just sad.
I realize that most people don't have to go through detention, but how can adding ~2 hours unnecessarily after (typically long and difficult) international travel be a good idea? It's a self-defeating waste. Investment in speeding up the process would no-doubt be returned to the economy and in better-will.
I don't think the US has the monopoly on crappy government services.
I think differences in acceptance vs. verbalized outrage are less important than whether things actually get fixed. (I'll definitely admit, though, that I'm irked by the acceptance I've seen among fellow Americans.) Do you know whether wait times actually went down substantially, or just that "something was done"?
(If you ever want to watch Customs in action for four hours, take the train between the US and Canada.)
I don't use lounges, perhaps they represent a major part of the rank.
I'd like to say that one of the things I really like about it is that it's really intuitive and a person can navigate easily to the gate he needs to be and the personnel is really kind.
And when I enter the EU through this airport, as a Non-EU citizen, in average I pass this checking procedure in 5-10 minutes (there is always more than one agent and long lines don't form).