Originally Posted by
UA_Eagle
Regarding International-to-International transit, USA doesn't have an 'international' hub, much like LHR, or FRA or NRT or HKG, etc. That's because USA is much bigger country than these countries and there tend to be a lot more international-to-international transfer in these places than here in USA. Hence not enough such traffic to make it worthwhile having int'l-to-int'l facility at most international airports.
No. ...
Originally Posted by
JerryFF
As several people have already indicated, I doubt that any US carrier has a significant percentage of their passengers making international to international connections, probably less than 1%. To redesign an airport to accomodate 1% or less of its incoming passengers is, in my opinion, not "moronic," especially if it generates a significant decrease in convenience for the other 99%. I doubt that US carriers lose much business because of this policy.
Again, no.
EWR, IAH. MIA, ORD, LAX and many other airports have been designed with international transit facilities in the architecture. Because of the USA's stupid policies these airports have opened up these terminals. But we're not talking about rebuilding or redesigning the terminals at all.
As for the amount of traffic lost, it is enough. A policy that unnecessarily inconveniences passengers and artificially limits the competitive ability of an industry is a bad one.
Originally Posted by
CarsTrainsPlanes
I think that most major airports handle international arrivals the same way -- escalators take international passengers to an upper level, where there is an immigration hall.
Well, in the USA this is the case. In the rest of the world not so much.