GUWonder

The Swedish government and Swedavia have bought into the US government's desire to expand US CBP (immigration/customs) pre-clearance to ARN and are reportedly in hot pursuit of this.

Will SAS make any adjustments if ARN gets this/gets this first relative to other SK hubs?

Personally, I don't welcome such an expansion of US CBP PreClearance, but obciously others may/do.

http://www.janes.com/article/48571/s...-pre-clearance

gnaget

Nightmare. Idiots. But I never fly ARN-EWR/ORD so it doesn't matter.

I guess it is better than CPH since there is little connecting traffic to these flights except Swedish domestic.

GUWonder

I fly ARN-US, and that is really is a big factor in why I don't welcome this -- and another ARN line and potentially an earlier check-in cut-off time.

My CBP processing times at EWR/JFK/ORD are way less than my baggage claim wait times.

If I were doing onward US travel from ORD/EWR/JFK with checked luggage -- usually I fly without checked luggage -- then perhaps I would be somewhat more inclined to welcome this kind of facility at ARN. But I still would be largely inclined to oppose it.

Don't be surprised if CPH moves in this same direction as ARN too. It's a real possibility.

FlyingMoose

I'm missing the obvious perhaps but why wouldn't you welcome pre-clearance? I've had plenty of terrible hours spend in line at EWR and ORD just because a jumbo from Asia with 400 people that don't speak English and with bad papers came in early or we came in late.

Arriving domestic is great, I love it on BA1 and on the Canadian airports where they have it. After a 9 hour flight I don't want to stand in line.

Immigration in the US is always a big hit or miss unless you fly to airports with few international arrivals such as SAN or PHX. Unlike NRT for example where it's always swift and efficient.

GUWonder

It creates another potential bottle neck too often. For a sign of how ugly it can be, check out the history of AUH passenger experiences with US CBP PreClearance. A history not all that pretty.

And in the case of ARN-US flights on non-SK metal, there may be a significant chance of having CBP PreClearance and still having to do CBP formalities on arrival in the US when there is a flight diversion for refueling purposes.

Also, as someone who frequently enters the US from non-CBP-PreClearance terminals/flights, I would rather the resources be spent in the US to speed things for the larger pool of passengers from non-CBP PreClearance airports. A CBP employee assigned to Stockholm costs more money than one assigned to Newark.

copperred

I don't understand this objection at all. Pre-clearance is a godsend, especially if you're flying into the majority of absolutely terrible CBP/ICE locations in the US. The only occasionally tolerable arrival airport is IAD, and even then if you arrive with 5 other aircraft it's a disaster. Pre-clearance is a major reason I choose to fly through Canada if I have the option.

copperred

The only airline so unprofessional and cheap as to have fuel diversions as a matter of course is UA or PIA. My solution has been to not fly them.

UA1K_no_more

The mid-terminal immigration is terrible. First you have to wait for your bags because they have too few luggage carousels, and then people often get backed up all the way through customs because the post-customs security control can't handle enough passengers.

GUWonder

IAD is one of the worse US airports of entry. As a long-time resident of the DC area, I've found IAD is an airport of entry I tend to try to avoid unless Global Entry will be an applicable time saver on my trip; and even then I try to minimize using IAD as a port of entry.

Flying from Europe to the US via Canada (which I do a lot) has been messier (i.e. more waiting time for passport control processing and less predictable processing times) on average for me than flying directly from continental Europe to the US via EWR or ORD (which I do a lot too) -- because of CBP PreClearance.

For some of the discussion elements for and against this kind of situation, check out the following thread: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/check...-airports.html

irishguy28

There, I disagree. And I would consider DUB a better point of comparison rather than AUH.

It's not adding another bottle neck - if anything, it is removing the worst bottleneck of all, the usually-long CBP line on arrival in the US (that said, arriving in JFK from AMS was a doddle a few weeks back). You already have to check-in for your long-haul flight 90 minutes or so before departure - so the CBP fits in nicely with this "dead time" (maybe for you, it's [duty-free-]shopping or lounge-hopping time, but it's possible to fit in all 3, as DUB travellers have come to realise). If you manage to make the check-in deadline for your flight, you will have sufficient time to clear all necessary departure procedures, and even have time to catch your breath.

Once you've been spoiled by a simple, friendly, hassle-free departure, and arriving as a domestic passenger with (usually) a short wait for luggage, you will hate going back to the "how-long-will-it-take?" lottery of queuing for immigration on arrival [I stood in line for 2 hours at PHL last summer, while passengers who had just-arrived were funnelled away from our interminable queue and whisked straight through the "US citizens" line, despite not being citizens, and despite not having had to queue at all. Very frustrating!!!].

GUWonder

The wait times at some Canadian airports -- especially in the morning -- is also not all that great. Much the same with what goes on at CBP PreClearance elsewhere in the Americas.

No, I don't at ARN; but with this at ARN it may turn out to be 90 minutes. For years now at ARN, I check in 60-75 minutes before flight time to the US and even manage to hit the lounges if interested. CBP PreClearance at ARN won't have lounge access in the PreClearance area, which will be more of a negative since I will then have to check-in earlier than my typical 60-75 minutes check-in at ARN for my ARN-US flights.

Let me guess, you aren't a regular on ARN-US non-stop flights? I am and will be for quite some time.

UA1K_no_more

From the "Evaluation Criteria for Preclearance Expansion", part of Preclearance
Expansion - Fiscal Year 2015 Guidance for Prospective Applicants:
Since the Delta JFK-CPH flight is only seasonal, I doubt that CPH would qualify.

GUWonder

A U.S. carrier having only seasonal service isn't a show-stopper to get this.

UA1K_no_more

Having seasonal service may not be a showstopper, but why would CPH want to do it? Why would the CBP want to invest in equipment at CPH if it won't be used much?
CPH could find ways to bypass the CBP facility and use the "pre-cleared" gates for other flights during the rest of the year when the DL flight doesn't operate, but I think it would be a waste of terminal space to build a CBP facility that may only be used during a couple of months per year. Would the CBP staff the facility for the SK and DY flights during the rest of the year?

(Using the requirements in the referenced document, AUH would not qualify for the future Preclearance expansion program)

GUWonder

To answer the last question, yes.

I am not all that privy to the thinking of CPH management, but the USG has certainly been trying to sell CPH to buy into this because the USG wants to push out a sort of security "perimeter" of the US -- and I'm not talking about something like the space in front of and around Dag Hammarskjölds Allé 24.

There was a thread about CPH too: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/sas-e...clearance.html