Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - US preclearance at U.K Airports?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2172941/Cut-price-flights-America-horizon-Government-announces-plans-carriers-fly-cheaper-airports.html

And the frustrating long immigration queues for those trying to enter America could also be cut for passengers.

Is that good idea for London Airports will have US pre-clearance?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2172941/Cut-price-flights-America-horizon-Government-announces-plans-carriers-fly-cheaper-airports.html



Is that good idea for London Airports will have US pre-clearance?

I don't know. As a traveller, there are good and bad points.

If you are not sure that you will be admitted, better NOT be admitted before actually flying (no cell, you "just" walk back out). Also, would make it easier to make tighter connections state-side.

On the other hand, the flights from London normally have a LOT of non-US citizens on them, so I think you might just move the 45-60 min line from main US hub to the London hub - no fun!

I love connecting in Canada (when I need to connect in North America anyway), since I have yet to be in a line there for more than 5-10 min.

Regardless, the UK cannot currently consistently and appropriately staff their own passport control - there is no way they could soon have more people in place. I say this because it is my understanding the at Dublin, the US immigration is done by locally employed staff under US guidelines.

I guess the main point of the article is about allowing more international (overseas?) flights from other London airports. Personally, I don't ever go via London to the US (although I do fly to/from London regularly), since it is very expensive in fees. So I think more competition on that might be good.

DanishFlyer

On the other hand, the flights from London normally have a LOT of non-US citizens on them, so I think you might just move the 45-60 min line from main US hub to the London hub - no fun!

Isn't that a good thing all round? Since people flying from London need to go through immigration anyway, what's the difference? It might even ease the pressure on US airports (which is why they do it in Canada, right?).

Also F / superelite passengers could even have immigration in the lounge. In the UK, if you need to extend your visa, you can pay £6000 to have UKBA officers come to you and do fingerprints/photos, so they could adopt this technology.

Regardless, the UK cannot currently consistently and appropriately staff their own passport control - there is no way they could soon have more people in place. I say this because it is my understanding the at Dublin, the US immigration is done by locally employed staff under US guidelines.

The UKBA may be having trouble, but why would the UK government be responsible for immigration to the US? Don't you need to be a US citizen to be a US immigration officer? They could be Americans stationed in London, but this still has nothing to do with the UKBA. Only British nationals can be immigration officers for the UK, which includes those stationed in Paris and Brussels.

I guess the main point of the article is about allowing more international (overseas?) flights from other London airports. Personally, I don't ever go via London to the US (although I do fly to/from London regularly), since it is very expensive in fees.

But many people do. I mean, if you can choose between CPH-CDG-JFK where there is a 1 hr wait in JFK, or CPH-LHR-JFK where you spend the LHR layover going through US immigration, I know which one I would pick.

DUB was great even in the days where it was immigration only preclearance. Nothing like coming into JFK T3 and dumping straight out into the baggage claim past a huge immigration line. Now it's just like getting off a domestic flight.

I know BA's Speedbird service stops at SNN for US preclearance and to refuel, so there's some demand from premium passengers for preclearance services (even with the stop).

My understanding is that preclearance officers must be U.S. Citizens, so the biggest obstacle might be the cost associated with moving folks there/cost of living adjustments/housing for CBP personnel stationed in the UK.

I thought I had read somewhere that CBP Personnel doing Preclearance were stationed outside of the country for 2 year tours. I'm not sure if the CBP Officers are considered on per-diem or "moved" for the duration of the assignment.

Regardless, the UK cannot currently consistently and appropriately staff their own passport control - there is no way they could soon have more people in place. I say this because it is my understanding the at Dublin, the US immigration is done by locally employed staff under US guidelines.

Nah. They're US officers posted to Ireland. I think it's a two-year tour for them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2172941/Cut-price-flights-America-horizon-Government-announces-plans-carriers-fly-cheaper-airports.html

Is that good idea for London Airports will have US pre-clearance?

Apparently it's not an entirely new idea - there are references out there on the 'net discussing a trial run of immigration-only preclearance in 1991 at Heathrow and Gatwick.