MSPeconomist

But for anyone who understands the system, you're not saving on total airport time, just moving the time saved from lower MCTs to a requirement to arrive at the PreClearance departure airport much earlier than otherwise.

GUWonder

Yes, which is a part of why I am opposed to CBP Preclearance expansion.

Cost to staff CBP at Preclearance airports is higher than to staff CBP at US airports of entry, so it means paying more money whether or not the tab is paid directly or indirectly.

catocony

For Canada, having pre-clearance makes some sense due to the large number of city pairs. If you're doing to do pre-clearance for some US flights, it only makes sense to do it for all of them.

The reason they don't mix and match is so the US airlines don't have to staff multiple terminals in the airport. It also keeps confusion at a minimum. No "if you're going to Atlanta on Delta go here, if you're going to LaGuardia on Delta go to this other terminal"

What should happen is the US and Canada enact a version of Schengan or the UK/Ireland arrangement and eliminate the nonsense completely.

Dan6681

I think it's a great idea. Can you imagine how much money this would save? Unfortunately I think there would be tremendous push back from both governments.

Canada would be concerned about criminals and unqualified people seeking benefits. America would claim something about terrorism.

pewpew

Canada would also have to worry about a brain drain, since it's not like you can enact such an agreement while maintaining the requirement for Canadians to apply for a study/work permit in the US

BigFlyer

I think one's opinion of this may vary depending on whether one's home airport has many non-stop international choices.

I travel out of SFO, and 90% of the time I clear immigration/customs at my home airport.

If instead my home airport was Reno, I might be more favorably disposed to pre-clearance due to the reduced MCT and risk of missing my connection.

I would avoid any airport with pre-celarance if I had an option to do so.

BigFlyer

Actually, it increases total airport time. When you clear at the destination, you don't have to budget extra time because you don't know how long it will take you to get through pre-clearance.

catocony

It definitely increases airport time at the departure airport. Instead of getting to Pearson an 1:15-1:30 before a flight to the US, I get there 2.5 or more just in case I have an issue with CBP.

Another problem with some pre-clearance airports - no separate lines for US citizens. Pearson is like this, although they were an early location for APC kiosks which did cut down some of the wait time.

chollie

+1

I'd rather deal with GE on arrival than having to budget a large amount of time prior to my flight. There's also some comfort in knowing that if there's some hassle, it won't be until I'm back on US soil again, not potentially trapped overseas.

guflyer

I do not understand why it is believed that adding Preclearance to Billy Bishop Airport (YTZ). At least for flights to MDW, the passport control and customs lines upon arrival are really short. In my opinion, not having to arrive at Billy Bishop really early is one of the advantages of using this airport over Pearson.

GUWonder

I generally dislike CBP Preclearance. And I dislike it because it is inconvenient for me, because it involves higher costs (since CBP staffing overseas is more expensive than CBP staffing in the US and segregated facilities lead to sub-optimal use of resources that increase costs in direct and indirect ways), and I am just not an unlimited fan of having foreign authorities (be those authorities my fellow Americans or not) having power in a sovereign country other than that of their own. Do I really want the Russians or Saudis having their own law enforcement authorities running law enforcement operations at US airports? No, and so in the interest of equity I don't want us doing the same in airports in foreign countries.

chrisny2

I think that's so Porter Airlines can fly nonstop to places like LGA and DCA that don't have CBP facilities.

TheMadBrewer

Maybe, if you clear at your destination rather than at a connecting point. I'd rather pre-clear in DUB than clear while connecting at JFK. Even with GE/PreCheck it can take a long time -- especially if you have to go upstairs to the main check TSA checkpoint. And if you had to check luggage (which I have to sometimes) then all bets are off.

AgentCooper

This.

Implementing pre-clearance would effectively kill a route I do frequently (VCE-AMS-SEA). In this case, I already take the first flight of the day out of VCE to AMS which usually gives me just under an hour and a half to make the connection to SEA. In the current system it can sometimes be tight depending on the crowds going through Schengen immigration -- add pre-clearance to the mix and it would be absolutely impossible to make such a connection (without an overnight stay in AMS).

GUWonder

Regular CBP clearance (i.e. CBP processing at non-CBP Preclearance ports) and the re-screening by TSA to fly onward within the US are not necessarily married for life.

I'd rather connect at JFK than deal with CBP PreClearance mushrooming my connection and check-in-cutoff times at AMS.