Newsstand - Previous in-transit passengers opting for other places to fly via

From the Straits Times in Singapore:

http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/story/0,4567,96215,00.html?

Not unlike the advertisement for the Netherlands I skimmed through on the way to the office today that claimed that AMS provided convenient connections for passengers connecting from points in the UK outside London to onward destinations--except that flights to the US needed additional security screening (read: we'd love to have you connect through AMS, but if you're going to the US, it really might be more convenient take the train to LHR/LGW/MAN and fly non-stop!).

"The screening is needed to make sure that each in-transit passenger who arrives gets on a departing airplane, said Greg Palmore, a spokesman for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, which is part of the Homeland Security Department.

The spokesman also revealed that because of complaints from some airlines, the security regime was being reviewed."

DHS followed its idiot policy of act first, think later. That's the problem with this particular regime - many, many examples of stupidity in the name of security. I hope 2004 is Regime Change year, not because I am a fan of 'the other team' but because I think a message needs to be sent: act like a dumbass fascist - lose your job.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

The idea behind this is sound. We did not have adequate controls in place to assure that transit passengers actually left the country.

Name calling aside, the architecture of U.S. airports generally makes them unsuitable for country to country transit passengers.

The damage is clear and it is not limited to in-transit passengers, which would be plenty bad enough. The benefits (assuming they exist) are elusive, at the very best.

I wouldn't be surprised if the list of 27 countries exempt from visa requirements grows due to public & political pressure on a route-by-route basis. After all, what kind of politican would standy-by and see his district's airport lose jobs, money and airline options as a result of an carrier rejigging its flight plan to make a stop elsewhere rather than in the U.S.?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
The idea behind this is sound. We did not have adequate controls in place to assure that transit passengers actually left the country. </font>

The optimmal solution to that of course would be not to ban TWOV passengers, but instead to develop the adequate controls to accomodate them. Banning TWOV passengers is a lose-lose situation for both sides.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by B747-437B:
The optimmal solution to that of course would be not to ban TWOV passengers, but instead to develop the adequate controls to accomodate them. Banning TWOV passengers is a lose-lose situation for both sides.

</font>

I agree completely. Most of the needed changes, unfortunately, would need to be infrastructure based, with sterile transit areas. I suspect that over a period of time the funds will be found to construct these areas at a limited number of gateway airports.

American Airlines has a transit lounge for this purpose in the DFW airport. It is located before INS and they keep you in this lounge until just before flight departure. If the people in question are "safe" enough to board their flight in Latin America/Europe, why are they considered a security risk being locked away in the transit lounge?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Tango:
American Airlines has a transit lounge for this purpose in the DFW airport. It is located before INS and they keep you in this lounge until just before flight departure. If the people in question are "safe" enough to board their flight in Latin America/Europe, why are they considered a security risk being locked away in the transit lounge?</font>

Because they might "escape" and cause all kinds of havok!!! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif Never mind that this process is quite easily circumvented, we need to harass the many to offer the remote chance of catching the few.

If someone really wants to enter the US, they are going to do it. Terrorist groups are quite well-financed. Even turning the US into a fortress with a Berlin-wall like structure won't prevent it. We need to get over this horse@#$% and accept the fact that some folks who don't like the US are going to still enter it, rather that discouraging many non-terrorists from doing so. It's just not worth it.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Anybody have an idea how much revenue we're talking about ? IOW, how many TWOVs were there on average before 9/11 ?

I have no figures, but I can't imagine it being a major income for the airlines. Except for S.America where service is spotty in places, I'd think most pax would choose their 'home' carrier rather than connecting via the US. The cost of making the necessary physical changes to airports which currently don't have sterile lounges is probably not worth it. Specially if it's the airline paying for it. I could be wrong of course.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Because they might "escape" and cause all kinds of havok!!! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif Never mind that this process is quite easily circumvented, we need to harass the many to offer the remote chance of catching the few.

If someone really wants to enter the US, they are going to do it. Terrorist groups are quite well-financed. Even turning the US into a fortress with a Berlin-wall like structure won't prevent it. We need to get over this horse@#$% and accept the fact that some folks who don't like the US are going to still enter it, rather that discouraging many non-terrorists from doing so. It's just not worth it.

</font>


Indeed. Fly to MEX, head north by surface.

I's love to see Iberia move their MIA hub to HAV. That'd sure make Jeb happy, I think.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Wally Bird:
Anybody have an idea how much revenue we're talking about ? IOW, how many TWOVs were there on average before 9/11 ?

I have no figures, but I can't imagine it being a major income for the airlines. Except for S.America where service is spotty in places, I'd think most pax would choose their 'home' carrier rather than connecting via the US. The cost of making the necessary physical changes to airports which currently don't have sterile lounges is probably not worth it. Specially if it's the airline paying for it. I could be wrong of course.</font>


If you'd read this portion of the article shown as the link in the first post:

"In the year before Sept 11, 2001, about 1.6 million people a year changed planes in the United States on their way between two other countries, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

In the 12 months that followed, the number of these in-transit passengers fell to about 614,000. Passenger counts have fallen further since August, airlines say, because people from all but 27 countries, including Canada, Japan and Western European nations, must now obtain a visa."


So, 1.6 million people is no small number and having that number cut to well below 614,000 will mean an economic impact no matter how you slice or dice it.

American Airlines used to carry 90000 passengers a year on this program from Latin America alone. Most of these passengers were on healthy revenue tickets. Most of these people will not be flying American anymore becuase of the problems of trying to arrange an interview with a US consualr officer are not worth the time and effort.

From the BTS: <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In 2001, 622 million passengers boarded 8.8 million U.S. airline flights, down from 666 million passengers on 9 million flights in 2000.</font>I submit that 1.6 million is indeed insignificant, even if they are all full-fare (which I doubt).

Let's assume the lowest fare you can fly on between Latin America and Europe is $800.00 Take this amount and multiple it by 90,000 and you get $72,000,000. I would not call that pocket change.

I think there should be a worldwide travel boycott of America. The world should send a message to this knee-jerk administration that it cannot quarentine itself from the world!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">multiple it by 90,000 and you get $72,000,000. I would not call that pocket change.</font>No it's not, but that's assuming the seats on both segments would otherwise be empty (not sold). I don't see many empty seats on transatlantic flights these days, haven't flown to S.America this century.

No empty seats on an aircraft does not translate to the airline selling all of those seats. Load factor is the true key as to how many seats are sold and American is currently at a 70 to 80% load factor.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Wally Bird:
multiple it by 90,000 and you get $72,000,000. I would not call that pocket change.</font>No it's not, but that's assuming the seats on both segments would otherwise be empty (not sold). I don't see many empty seats on transatlantic flights these days, haven't flown to S.America this century.


You wanted some hard numbers, so here's some in this article today:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7096183.htm

A direct hit could be the Iberia Airlines hub at MIA. The researchers noted that Spain's Iberia Airlines, the only foreign carrier to have a passenger hub in the United States, is reportedly considering moving because of these restrictions.

Such a move would result in a loss of 2,000 direct and indirect jobs and $157 million in annual business revenue.

I certainly see how IB could be taking a big hit at MIA. Now, I'm no economist, but the 'loss' of 2000 jobs seems out of proportion to the size of IB's operation. What do they run, 12 movements a day ?