World's Best Airports - Yet Another Poll

[unicorn]

11 minutes ago, Keithambrose said:

That's bad, but i nearly always have to go through security again when I change planes, wherever I've been.

No, most countries don't make you do that when just changing planes. The US does make you go through customs and immigration on arrival from most countries (except Canada, Aruba, Bahamas, Bermuda, Ireland, and UAE), and to go through security again. However, one does not need to go through security again with domestic travel (or travel from those 6 countries). 

[Keithambrose]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

No, most countries don't make you do that when just changing planes. The US does make you go through customs and immigration on arrival from most countries (except Canada, Aruba, Bahamas, Bermuda, Ireland, and UAE), and to go through security again. However, one does not need to go through security again with domestic travel (or travel from those 6 countries). 

Thanks. To be fair, I try to fly direct these days, but I'm sure that on some occasions when I had an international  change, Helsinki? Kuala Lumpur? I had to go through security  again. I know that memory plays tricks, but I have a memory of wandering  around, looking for the way to connections, and going through  security  again, and wondering why, since i had been through security  in London! Maybe Hong Kong, where I sometimes  changed for Tokyo or Bangkok. Any airport where you have to change terminals is going to be difficult.  

[vinapu]

2 hours ago, unicorn said:

No, most countries don't make you do that when just changing planes. 

I'm not so sure, my impression is that NOT going through security when just changing planes  is more  exception than rule. I think we are so used to it that we simply  go through it without even giving it second thought unless we have tight connection , when nail biting starts

 

[xpaulo]

On 4/15/2025 at 2:13 PM, fedssocr said:

CDG is one of my least favorites.

Me too. The first airport official to look at the my boarding pass told me it was unlikely I would make my connection home to Canada. I don't know if he misread the boarding pass or was a jerk, but I actually had lots of time. I panicked instead of the checking the time. There was a really long shuttle trip, I of course was at the last one. And it wasn't until I got there until I realized I still had three hours. Gatwick is the worse I've ever been to. Crowded, WIFI doesn't work even if you pay for it, a woman working at the security check was screaming at people. I figured she was in the army at some point. 

[PeterRS]

7 hours ago, unicorn said:

No, most countries don't make you do that when just changing planes. The US does make you go through customs and immigration on arrival from most countries (except Canada, Aruba, Bahamas, Bermuda, Ireland, and UAE), and to go through security again. However, one does not need to go through security again with domestic travel (or travel from those 6 countries). 

I always wonder why the US makes passengers do this. I once planned an RTW trip. To maximise miles, I took Tokyo to DFW on AA and then AA to Vancouver. I had no idea i'd actually have to enter the USA and then exit again at DFW. For transit passengers, that just seems ridiculous. Why the airline had not red-flagged this to me when I booked I totally fail to understand. With long queues to enter DFW, I assumed I'd miss my connection. I just made it.

[unicorn]

3 hours ago, PeterRS said:

...With long queues to enter DFW, I assumed I'd miss my connection. I just made it.

It's a stupid pain in the ass, no doubt. Always allow for 3 hours for international connections when arriving in the US.

[PeterRS]

5 hours ago, unicorn said:

It's a stupid pain in the ass, no doubt. Always allow for 3 hours for international connections when arriving in the US.

Good advice. Is there a reason why US airports do not permit international to international connecting flights like almost every other nation?

[vinapu]

2 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Good advice. Is there a reason why US airports do not permit international to international connecting flights like almost every other nation?

must be 47th amendment to constitution or something

[Keithambrose]

1 minute ago, vinapu said:

must be 47th amendment to constitution or something

They just don't like foreigners!

[vinapu]

9 minutes ago, Keithambrose said:

They just don't like foreigners!

or opposite, they want them to stay , not just transit

[jimmie50]

12 minutes ago, vinapu said:

must be 47th amendment

While I would like to place the blame on Orange Overlord #47, the system has been that way in the US for some time.  Not sure why we find it necessary when going from one international flight to another that things need to be re-checked and additional security.  Screwy system for sure.  

[thaiophilus]

3 hours ago, jimmie50 said:

things need to be re-checked and additional security.  Screwy system for sure.  

A cynic would say the important detail is that everyone and their baggage goes through US customs & immigration and actually sets foot on US soil. That gives the government more powers to do things to anybody they consider undesirable. 

[unicorn]

6 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Good advice. Is there a reason why US airports do not permit international to international connecting flights like almost every other nation?

Not a very good reason. I suppose, theoretically, since you had to pick up your checked luggage to go through customs, a wily terrorist could transfer, say, a knife from his checked luggage to his carry-on. In that case, although his carry-on went through security at the departing airport, an item which is allowed in checked luggage but not in a carry-on could be snuck into the cabin. Also, the US probably also feels (probably correctly) that it's a higher-threat target, so doesn't trust every other country's security procedures. What if the original flight came from, say, Libya or Burkina Faso? 

[vinapu]

7 hours ago, thaiophilus said:

A cynic would say the important detail is that everyone and their baggage goes through US customs & immigration and actually sets foot on US soil. That gives the government more powers to do things to anybody they consider undesirable. 

Airports are not extraterritorial. Everybody disembarking  sets foot on landing country's  soil whether they go through immigration or stay in transit zone. If they want to arrest somebody , it can be done at the gate.

[PeterRS]

9 hours ago, unicorn said:

What if the original flight came from, say, Libya or Burkina Faso? 

To me that is still not a valid argument! Passengers from 'suspect' countries are already singled out and sent to a separate queue for special screening. That even used to be the case for flights which originated in Bangkok until the turn of this century! 

My guess is that with most air travel being in, to or from the USA in the early days, no one even considered the possibility of connecting flights. Then Canada came into the mix. Instead of altering airport designs, some bright spark came up with the idea of installing US customs and immigration facilities at the major Canadian airports. It happened once in Europe when BA ran a 737 out of London's small City airport with a short stop to go through USA customs and immigration at Shannon. Personally I know of no others.

[Keithambrose]

5 hours ago, PeterRS said:

To me that is still not a valid argument! Passengers from 'suspect' countries are already singled out and sent to a separate queue for special screening. That even used to be the case for flights which originated in Bangkok until the turn of this century! 

My guess is that with most air travel being in, to or from the USA in the early days, no one even considered the possibility of connecting flights. Then Canada came into the mix. Instead of altering airport designs, some bright spark came up with the idea of installing US customs and immigration facilities at the major Canadian airports. It happened once in Europe when BA ran a 737 out of London's small City airport with a short stop to go through USA customs and immigration at Shannon. Personally I know of no others.

Excellent  service from LCY, I took it a number of times. Actually an Airbus 318. A 737 is not permitted to fly from LCY. The 318, smallest of the family, didn't have the range to reach JFK, with reserve fuel, hence had to refuel in Shannon,  thus the stop, and US immigration. Due to upper atmosphere  winds, came back non stop. It was supported, financially,  by some major City organisations,  but Covid put an end to that. As I recall, flight no was BA001! Only 32 (or36) seats, all business, flat beds. In my experience,  never full!

[unicorn]

14 hours ago, PeterRS said:

... Passengers from 'suspect' countries are already singled out and sent to a separate queue for special screening....

go through USA customs and immigration at Shannon. Personally I know of no others.

It would be logistically complex to just rescreen those whose first flight originated from a suspect country. What if the passenger originated in Libya, for example, and transited in CDG before his flight in the US? It could get quite messy.

As I mentioned in a prior post, the countries for which one can go through US customs at the airport of origin are Canada, Aruba, Bahamas, Bermuda, Ireland, and the UAE. What's especially nice is that you can basically buy extra duty-free liquor if you like, and bring it in, since you've already gone through customs. The duty-free shops at those airport, however, will not sell Cuban Havana Club rum or Cuban cigars. 

[PeterRS]

6 hours ago, unicorn said:

It would be logistically complex to just rescreen those whose first flight originated from a suspect country. What if the passenger originated in Libya, for example, and transited in CDG before his flight in the US? It could get quite messy.

I wonder why it could get messy. Check-in staff and Immigration officers usually have the routing of passengers on the screens in front of them. I wrote before that once having had several stops in Europe on an RTW ticket that had actually been issued in Bangkok (where they were cheaper), I had SSS stamped in large letters on my boardng pass at LGA. The security lady then went through everything even to the point of taking belongings out of my bag and placing them on a desk so other passengers could see! I later learned that this stands for Special Security Screening and is not especially for those originating in countries the USA does not like. I did not like it, but I do not see how this gets messy. Slightly more time consuming perhaps but I still fail to understand why the USA does not accept that some passengers use their airports as transit points. 

[unicorn]

2 hours ago, PeterRS said:

I wonder why it could get messy. Check-in staff and Immigration officers usually have the routing of passengers on the screens in front of them. I wrote before that once having had several stops in Europe on an RTW ticket that had actually been issued in Bangkok (where they were cheaper)...

Apparently they were able to flag where the ticket was issued but not your originating flight. I agree that one should be able to transit in the US. It would require an investment, however, which officials don't seem to have a taste for. 

I feel a song with handsome dancers coming on...

 

 

[floridarob]

3 hours ago, PeterRS said:

I wonder why it could get messy. Check-in staff and Immigration officers usually have the routing of passengers on the screens in front of them. I wrote before that once having had several stops in Europe on an RTW ticket that had actually been issued in Bangkok (where they were cheaper), I had SSS stamped in large letters on my boardng pass at LGA. The security lady then went through everything even to the point of taking belongings out of my bag and placing them on a desk so other passengers could see! I later learned that this stands for Special Security Screening and is not especially for those originating in countries the USA does not like. I did not like it, but I do not see how this gets messy. Slightly more time consuming perhaps but I still fail to understand why the USA does not accept that some passengers use their airports as transit points. 

SSS is random, supposedly. I get it once or twice a year, I can't associate any rhyme, reason or trend why. Also, the metal detectors at airports alarm randomly, as a "random" check.... I get it as well, frequently.... but can't win the lottery 🤷‍♂️

[PeterRS]

2 minutes ago, floridarob said:

SSS is random, supposedly. I get it once or twice a year, I can't associate any rhyme, reason or trend why. Also, the metal detectors at airports alarm randomly, as a "random" check.... I get it as well, frequently.... but can't win the lottery 🤷‍♂️

Not sure of the situation now as this happened quite a few years ago. But it was the first time I had ever seen the initials on a boarding pass. On my return to Hong Kong i asked a friend who was no. 2 in Cathay Pacific. He told me it was almost certainly because the check-in staff had noticed the ticket had been issued in Bangkok which in those days was regarded as something of a security risk. It was a flight to LAX and my first flight originating in the USA. 

[floridarob]

Airport staff has zero influence....computer generated, like I said supposedly random, but there must be an algorithm that sets it off. 

Rather than guessing, I asked ChatGpt:

 

Here’s the blunt real-world version:

The people most likely to get SSSS are not “people who did one weird thing.” They are usually people in one of four buckets:

1. People whose identity does not clear cleanly.
This is the big one. If your name is similar to someone on a watchlist, or your passenger data keeps getting matched imperfectly, you are much more likely to get repeated extra screening. That is exactly why DHS TRIP exists: DHS says it helps people who repeatedly get additional screening, are unable to print a boarding pass, or have other recurring screening problems. Secure Flight relies on passenger data like full name, date of birth, sex, redress number/KTN, passport info, reservation control number, and itinerary information.

2. Travelers whose itinerary matches TSA risk-based rules.
This is the part that proves it is not just random. GAO says TSA began using risk-based factors to create screening rules for enhanced screening, and gave an example of a rule that could target passengers in a certain age range on a flight from a particular country. GAO also says Secure Flight uses the Silent Partner and Quiet Skies lists to designate those passengers for enhanced screening before boarding.

3. Travelers on certain international U.S.-related routings.
Per GAO, the Silent Partner rules are used for flights inbound to the United States, and Quiet Skies can continue enhanced screening on certain later domestic or outbound flights for a limited period or number of flights. So if someone suddenly starts getting SSSS around a particular U.S.-linked international trip pattern, that is far more plausible than “the gate agent didn’t like me.”

4. Truly random selection.
That part is real too. DHS says many factors are considered for secondary screening, but for security reasons they cannot be disclosed. In other words, some cases are random, some are not, and the government is deliberately not telling the public how to distinguish them from the outside.

What is probably true in practice, but not officially confirmed as a neat public checklist, is the stuff travelers always repeat: one-way tickets, last-minute tickets, unusual routings, certain countries, etc. Some of that may overlap with real risk rules, but TSA does not publish a simple consumer list saying “these 7 booking behaviors cause SSSS.” The only government-backed thing we can say confidently is that there are undisclosed risk rules plus identity/watchlist matching plus some randomness.

A useful rule of thumb is this:
If it happens once, it may just be random.
If it happens repeatedly, especially with trouble checking in online or printing a boarding pass, that starts to smell much more like an identity-resolution or watchlist-near-match problem, and DHS TRIP is the official fix path.

So yes, there are almost certainly hidden scoring rules and pattern-based triggers in the background. TSA just isn’t going to publish the recipe card, because that would defeat the point. Very comforting, very transparent, very government.