So you're saying there aren't enough Canadians and South Americans transferring to intercontinental flights at JFK, ATL, IAH or whichever hub. I highly doubt that and my guess would be that, if it indeed was to be that way, it would be BECAUSE of the USA lacking in transit facilities

No extra security as far as I can understand. And $100? Ha ha! I'd have to pay more than that just for the daytrip to London for the interview (and that's not accounting for my time and before visa fees are paid). More like $300.

There are two reasons for that
a) The US is very near the top of the list of a select number of countries which I just do not wish to visit.
b) In any case, if there is so much trouble in designing a RTW, and given I primarily want to visit 2-3 specific places as opposed to randomly travel around the globe, I'll just scrap the idea altogether and buy separate tickets on carriers from countries that would respect my time and myself as a person and value my contribution (however small) to their airline industry.

Well, sterile transit between Canada / USA would be a PITA for the majority of passengers. 95% of passengers flying between Canada / USA do not have international connections. The airports are designed to handle that 95% efficiently -- hence, the existance of pre-clearance facilities in Canada so that when transborder flights land in the USA, they can disembark at the domestic terminal (making USA domestic connections a breeze). If flights from Canada to the USA disembarked at international terminals -- that would really be a PITA for the average connecting passenger.

As for South Americans -- well, TWOV helped them out when it was around. Getting rid of it was dumb. It would be so much easier if flights departing the USA/Canada to non-North American destinations would undergo exit screening. I'm talking about a quick swipe of the passport with no questions, followed by entering a secured "exit" area. Then again, there are only a select few airports where that would really be helpful -- the others have too few international flights to justify tying up gates that would be unused most of the time. But where it makes sense (JFK, MIA, LAX, IAH), they should do it.

One thought....have you considered a *A RTW ticket? I don't know what the price differential is between plan b) and a *A RTW ticket, but it might be significant enough to make you jump ship from Skyteam (for this trip). It's much easier to get a transpac segment on *A that bypasses the USA than it is on Skyteam.

-notam

Benefiting other airlines now
 

According to a Financial Times report, it seems Air Canada is seeing the benefits of new U.S. transit policy. AC is seeing a surge in non-Canadian origination traffic for flights to Brasil. The volume trebled between Jan.-Nov. 2004 compared to the same period a year earlier.

AC hopes to capitalise on BA's suspension of flights to CCS and BOG (flying AA through MIA or CO through IAH isn't a good option).

Re: OP. Yeah, pretty ridiculous. Americans who travel very much (admittedly a minority) also cringe at the thought of yet more reciprocal measures directed at Americans.

GUM airport actually has a lot of the worst of both worlds: Most American procedures and hassles, but not really America (you'll have to do it all over again if continuing to the mainland). Not only that, but they make even transit passengers go through immigration (including U.S. citizens). Imagine if every international hub airport started doing that!

Seems like an Air Canada could see an opportunity and try to capitalize by incorporating it into marketing ("Try Toronto instead! Fewer hassles!") Maybe even do like SQ or BI and allow free stopovers for nationalities that can easily get a Canadian visa.

Recently read in AR's magazine that they are starting service to ZRH and MUC (through MAD IIRC). No word on China though.

Some African friends of mine need transit visas when flying via the UK to certain African countries.