Originally Posted by
Boraxo
Don't forget Beijing and Lagos, both of which can stretch 1+ hours
Cry me a river. Have you ever walked from a UA gate in the Queen's terminal (LHR 2) to immigration, then connected to a BA flight in T5 or worse yet to the HEX train? What about landing at a bus gate at FRA and then walking miles to a train hop, to security, and then another walk to gates? Or from IAH B/C gates to the E terminal gates? And don't get me started on my recent journey that seemed to traverse most of IST from the end of one pier, across the main concourse to the lounge and then back to another pier.
All of these were 20 minutes or more, and probably 5-10x longer than anything I have even encountered at SFO. Our home airport is well designed, easy to navigate and quite compact compared to other world class airports. I will stack it up against almost anywhere.
I don't know what point you're driving at.
Badly designed airports are not worth emulating.
The original premise being discussed is whether mandatory immigration at US airports makes things convenient and improves airport design.
You proposed a theory that it made for easy connections between domestic / international flight combinations (presumably domestic to international only and not vice versa) on account (principally) of being able to quickly get (walk?) to the connecting departure gate and (2) not having to clear security during the connection.
My response: (1) is valid only when the connecting flight departs from a sufficiently nearby gate - there is no guarantee it will and the benefits of not having to clear security and transfer landside by shuttle / light rail over walking 20 minute+ distances are debatable at best. In my view there's no one-size-fits-all for these kind of situations unless there's an efficient and convenient airtrain that is airside - a possibility that looks unlikely for the next 10 perhaps 20 years at least at most US airports,
Keep in mind that your theory does not apply to international - international transfers at all (which you have acknowledged). We are then required to evaluate whether the policy of forcing everyone to clear immigration on such connections is worth the convenience you proposed above.
I suspect it makes airport design convenient for architects and planners and perhaps security but doesn't really add much benefit to the domestic -- > international connecting passengers you mention - for reasons I have already articulated above.
As for dissing the long walks at the airports you mention - as I mentioned earlier, it's bad design indeed but for the category of intl-intl transfers it's certainly easier and massively more convenient than having to get a visa for the transit.