ABTC / APEC Business Travel Card U.S. Policy Discussion
Sep 24, 2014, 5:48 pm
#406
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL DM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing>MVP
Posts: 9,341
Sorry to hear about these problems. As mentioned, U.S. cardholders are still a new phenomenon, having only started traveling around July of this year. Many APEC economies have had similar troubles during their first year or so of participation in the ABTC program.
That said, someone is dropping the ball here. All APEC economies are now well aware that the U.S. is issuing ABTC cards, but apparently the respective authorities in some economies are not properly training their staff on how to deal with the blank card backs, since cardholders should be allowed to use fast track lanes regardless of whether the economy in question is listed on the back.
Perhaps the U.S. should send out some educational materials to the other economies to make sure everyone knows what a U.S. ABTC card looks like.
In the case of Taipei, my understanding is that their immigration department is very concerned about possible fraud concerning the ABTC, which may explain why they are changing policy (if in fact that is the case). But it is against the guidelines of the ABTC Operating Framework to deny cardholders entry to fast track lanes. The Framework states "cards allow use of priority immigration processing lanes in a foreign economy,
regardless of whether the foreign economy has granted pre-clearance."
Is anyone else having these kinds of problems? I will make note of it in the study I am conducting for APEC.
That said, someone is dropping the ball here. All APEC economies are now well aware that the U.S. is issuing ABTC cards, but apparently the respective authorities in some economies are not properly training their staff on how to deal with the blank card backs, since cardholders should be allowed to use fast track lanes regardless of whether the economy in question is listed on the back.
Perhaps the U.S. should send out some educational materials to the other economies to make sure everyone knows what a U.S. ABTC card looks like.
In the case of Taipei, my understanding is that their immigration department is very concerned about possible fraud concerning the ABTC, which may explain why they are changing policy (if in fact that is the case). But it is against the guidelines of the ABTC Operating Framework to deny cardholders entry to fast track lanes. The Framework states "cards allow use of priority immigration processing lanes in a foreign economy,
regardless of whether the foreign economy has granted pre-clearance."
Is anyone else having these kinds of problems? I will make note of it in the study I am conducting for APEC.
As I have pointed out before at least some (and maybe many or all) member countries have implemented ABTC laws and regulations in a manner which makes no distinction between full members and transitional members. Either you get all benefits (visa exemption and priority lines) or you get no benefits, but cardholders need to be submitted for pre-clearance which for some inexplicable reason the CBP decided not to do.
If the CBP had not made a total cf of the ABTC implementation, this whole thing would not have been a problem and U.S. citizens may well have been benefiting from not only priority lanes but also visa exemption.
Nobody should be blaming other countries, they should be writing letters to their legislators and complaining about the utter incompetence of CBP.
Sep 24, 2014, 8:22 pm
#407
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NYC
Programs: AA 2MM, Bonvoy LTT, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,635
Why should other countries pay any attention to the Framework when the U.S does not. Despite the fact that Framework says that member countries may give visa exemption to cardholders from countries that are transitional members, the CBP unilaterally decided not to seek pre-clearance from other other countries for U.S. cardholders.
Maybe you are not aware of the other US ABTC thread since the moderators split them but this has already been discussed in length here between Always Flyin and myself. Refer to posts 369 and 373.
I know what you are going to write next. Submit pre-clearance to those countries already granting visa-waiver to US citizen so that the back of the card can carry the country endorsement. Before you start placing blame that "the CBP unilaterally decided not to seek pre-clearance from other other countries for U.S. cardholders," let's review the key word in the sentence from the Final Rule published on page 2 of the PDF.
Fully participating members may choose to provide full ‘‘pre-clearance benefits’’ to any transitional member whether or not the transitional member provides similar full ‘‘pre-clearance benefits.’
As I have pointed out before at least some (and maybe many or all) member countries have implemented ABTC laws and regulations in a manner which makes no distinction between full members and transitional members. Either you get all benefits (visa exemption and priority lines) or you get no benefits, but cardholders need to be submitted for pre-clearance which for some inexplicable reason the CBP decided not to do.[/B]
If that is the case, the solution is simple. As Ari indicated, send those non-USA/CAN ABTC members to back of the general line at USA/CAN airports. If the Framework does have a requirement of offering fast-track without country endorsement, seems the like the fault does fall with the APEC countries that are denying USA/CAN ABTC members fast-track.
I agree that complaints should be drafted. But those complaints should be directed to members of Congress for failing to change US law to support US becoming a full ABTC member.
Sep 24, 2014, 9:50 pm
#408
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL DM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing>MVP
Posts: 9,341
Just responding to others who are trying to turn it into a policy thread.
The moderators didn't split them. I'm the OP on this thread and I started it as a separate thread. The mods temporarily merged it with the old thread until they realized the benefit of having it separate as originally intended . (It still hasn't moved it back to the Asia Forum where it belongs.
)
You're right I don't know for a fact, but what I do know is:
Regardless of the response of other countries, there is still no reason why CBP could not have submitted them. (It's allowed under the Framework). The decision not to do so was clearly a CBP decision and there is nothing in the Congressional record or other official documents to suggest otherwise
The laws and regs in at least some countries make no distinction between cardholders from full or transitional members so anyone from those countries responding to CBP in the negative (assuming they were actually contacted) were either ignorant of or in contravention of their own laws.
CBP has acknowledged that full members may provide visa free entry to pre-cleared card holders.
CBP mis-leadingly states that it is "not expected" that US cardholders will receive visa free travel privileges.... despite the fact that CBP knew this for "certain" since they are not submitting cards for pre-clearance.
The CBP spent $2 1/2 million and took 2 1/2 years to do a trivial IT project that a competent high school student could have done in 2 1/2 months for $25k.
When questioned on these issues, the CBP became completely non-communicative.
I leave it to everyone to form their own judgement about CBP competence and motivations.
You're conflating what full members and transitional members can and can not do. I'm simply stating that Full members may offer full benefits and in fact some have passed laws and regulations doing just that.
We do not know what the Framework says with respect to providing fast track privileges to non-endorsed cardholders. For all we know, this too may just be a unilateral decision of the U.S. or just a requirement for transitional members. As long as the "Ribbentrop" ABTC Framework remains a secret treaty, we won't know. (Maybe AsiaFlyer can tell us).
Again, we don't know if there is a such a requirement or not.
You're reading the Congressional Record selectively. The section you quote is in specific reference to the benefit foreign ABTC holders have in U.S.. The record nowhere says this is the "only" benefit US cardholders will receive. In fact, the summary section of the record refers to "numerous" benefits. And nowhere does the act say anything about issuing a limited use or dumbed down version of the card.
I don't care whether foreigners get to travel visa free to the U.S. I only care that U.S. citizens have the opportunity to benefit from the legislation as it was drafted and enacted by our elected representatives.
BTW - I'm happy to go back to the other thread as long as people stop posting misinformation on this one.
Maybe you are not aware of the other US ABTC thread since the moderators split them but this has already been discussed in length here between Always Flyin and myself. Refer to posts 369 and 373.
)
Do you know for a fact if CBP did or didn't attempt to reach out to those countries? You're being judge and jury without knowing all the facts related to the matter. It could have been that CBP never reached out as you are suggesting or it could also have been that CBP did reached out and the other countries said no as they were not required by the Framework to offer one-way pre-clearance. I think declaring CBP unilaterally not seeking one-way pre-clearance is a bit premature will the evidence available.
Regardless of the response of other countries, there is still no reason why CBP could not have submitted them. (It's allowed under the Framework). The decision not to do so was clearly a CBP decision and there is nothing in the Congressional record or other official documents to suggest otherwise
The laws and regs in at least some countries make no distinction between cardholders from full or transitional members so anyone from those countries responding to CBP in the negative (assuming they were actually contacted) were either ignorant of or in contravention of their own laws.
CBP has acknowledged that full members may provide visa free entry to pre-cleared card holders.
CBP mis-leadingly states that it is "not expected" that US cardholders will receive visa free travel privileges.... despite the fact that CBP knew this for "certain" since they are not submitting cards for pre-clearance.
The CBP spent $2 1/2 million and took 2 1/2 years to do a trivial IT project that a competent high school student could have done in 2 1/2 months for $25k.
When questioned on these issues, the CBP became completely non-communicative.
I leave it to everyone to form their own judgement about CBP competence and motivations.
What USA/CAN have been offering non-USA/CAN ABTC members directly contradicts what you are describing. It doesn't seem like it's all all-or-nothing benefit. Maybe all these years, USA/CAN were going above and beyond the Framework by offering fast-track without pre-clearance when the Framework did not have such a requirement.
We do not know what the Framework says with respect to providing fast track privileges to non-endorsed cardholders. For all we know, this too may just be a unilateral decision of the U.S. or just a requirement for transitional members. As long as the "Ribbentrop" ABTC Framework remains a secret treaty, we won't know. (Maybe AsiaFlyer can tell us).
If that is the case, the solution is simple. As Ari indicated, send those non-USA/CAN ABTC members to back of the general line at USA/CAN airports. If the Framework does have a requirement of offering fast-track without country endorsement, seems the like the fault does fall with the APEC countries that are denying USA/CAN ABTC members fast-track.
As referenced in the link within post 373 in the other ABTC thread, the ABTC Act never intended for full ABTC implementation. It's scope was always limited to just fast-track access (and maybe jump the line in obtaining a visa interview date). You're blaming CBP for not implementing something that was outside the scope of the legislation authorizing the issuance of ABTC cards to begin with!!!!!
I agree that complaints should be drafted. But those complaints should be directed to members of Congress for failing to change US law to support US becoming a full ABTC member.
BTW - I'm happy to go back to the other thread as long as people stop posting misinformation on this one.
Last edited by 5khours; Sep 24, 2014 at 9:55 pm Reason: typos
Sep 24, 2014, 10:26 pm
#409
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,745
I am not going to weigh in on this [again] but to state that I am in agreement with 5khours.
Well, except for one thing:
That is grossly underestimating the ability of competent high school students.
Well, except for one thing:
The CBP spent $2 1/2 million and took 2 1/2 years to do a trivial IT project that a competent high school student could have done in 2 1/2 months for $25k.
Sep 24, 2014, 10:50 pm
#410
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NYC
Programs: AA 2MM, Bonvoy LTT, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,635
I agree I would like AsiaFlyer to comment on what is required what is not by framework. So no point for me to comment further on the framework.
My understanding of your position is CBP is at fault for not implementing one way preclearance (as indicated by you stating you don't care about foreigners traveling visa free to US).
I have some difficulty accepting that position because in one hand you are stating CBP is incompetent (while admitting none of us have the visibility as to what was attempted/not attempted) but in the other hand this very position is based on the Final Rule stating that one-way preclearance is even possible to begin with but keep in mind that this Final Rule was drafted by the very same organization which you are accusing as incompetent. I'm having a difficult time subscribing to this line of reasoning.
My understanding of your position is CBP is at fault for not implementing one way preclearance (as indicated by you stating you don't care about foreigners traveling visa free to US).
I have some difficulty accepting that position because in one hand you are stating CBP is incompetent (while admitting none of us have the visibility as to what was attempted/not attempted) but in the other hand this very position is based on the Final Rule stating that one-way preclearance is even possible to begin with but keep in mind that this Final Rule was drafted by the very same organization which you are accusing as incompetent. I'm having a difficult time subscribing to this line of reasoning.
Sep 25, 2014, 1:38 am
#411
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL DM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing>MVP
Posts: 9,341
+1
Was denied three times this past week: PVG, ICN, and HND. All three times I bypassed relatively long regular immigration queues, got to the front of the ABTC queue, the officer turned the card over, saw "Valid for travel to: <NOTHING>," and then shook his head and said "cannot use for this country" or some variation of that. At ICN, the officer actually showed the card to a supervisor, who then asked me in halting English whether my card was fake. It took some convincing to have him hand it back to me; he was ready to confiscate it.
What a colossal farce this half-baked ABTC has turned out to be. Glad we all waited for three years to be awarded with a whole lot of nothing.
Was denied three times this past week: PVG, ICN, and HND. All three times I bypassed relatively long regular immigration queues, got to the front of the ABTC queue, the officer turned the card over, saw "Valid for travel to: <NOTHING>," and then shook his head and said "cannot use for this country" or some variation of that. At ICN, the officer actually showed the card to a supervisor, who then asked me in halting English whether my card was fake. It took some convincing to have him hand it back to me; he was ready to confiscate it.
What a colossal farce this half-baked ABTC has turned out to be. Glad we all waited for three years to be awarded with a whole lot of nothing.
http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000099512.pdf
Nov 5, 2015, 7:21 am
#412
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SIN/PVG
Programs: Basement Lurker Club
Posts: 236
Want revive this thread as it's been more than a year at this point.
We're getting closer to the end of the program, which is within two and half to three years, and I haven't heard anything in particular on what will happen? Will it even be renewed at this point? Thanks to the upcoming elections, the political climate for even doing business with foreign countries seems extremely hostile idea to many Americans at the moment. I get the feeling if the business community doesn't start speaking up, this program might just lapse?
On an off note going back to this comment, I was with my girlfriend when she went to apply for her Chinese ABTC card a few months ago. The two officials I chatted with in Guangdong told me something pretty astonishing, which was that there were less than 300 cards issued in this province.... in total as of Jan 1 this year. To put that into perspective, Guangdong has a population of around 110 million people.
We're getting closer to the end of the program, which is within two and half to three years, and I haven't heard anything in particular on what will happen? Will it even be renewed at this point? Thanks to the upcoming elections, the political climate for even doing business with foreign countries seems extremely hostile idea to many Americans at the moment. I get the feeling if the business community doesn't start speaking up, this program might just lapse?
On an off note going back to this comment, I was with my girlfriend when she went to apply for her Chinese ABTC card a few months ago. The two officials I chatted with in Guangdong told me something pretty astonishing, which was that there were less than 300 cards issued in this province.... in total as of Jan 1 this year. To put that into perspective, Guangdong has a population of around 110 million people.
Nov 5, 2015, 10:51 am
#413
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NYC
Programs: AA 2MM, Bonvoy LTT, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,635
On an off note going back to this comment, I was with my girlfriend when she went to apply for her Chinese ABTC card a few months ago. The two officials I chatted with in Guangdong told me something pretty astonishing, which was that there were less than 300 cards issued in this province.... in total as of Jan 1 this year. To put that into perspective, Guangdong has a population of around 110 million people.
Sep 28, 2016, 10:06 pm
#414
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: KBP
Programs: UA 1K, IHG Plat
Posts: 174
Thread has been dead for about a year... Any changes?
I entered ICN, NRT, BKK, and AU in the last few weeks and have been laughed at, scolded and in BKK, the immigration lead decided to take me to another room to find out how I got one of these FAKE cards...
Two more guys came in with lots of pins and stripes on their Uniforms - Like they were wondering what to do with me and the card (I've only entered Thailand about 160 times in the last 4 years... After about 20 minutes and after making copies of my passport AND APEC card, they took me over to the back of the line and told me to enter as a tourist...
Thanks USA - Awesome way to treat our own citizens... I think this is a way to keep us from being too far away from "Home"... even though my home isn't anywhere near the US.
Two more guys came in with lots of pins and stripes on their Uniforms - Like they were wondering what to do with me and the card (I've only entered Thailand about 160 times in the last 4 years... After about 20 minutes and after making copies of my passport AND APEC card, they took me over to the back of the line and told me to enter as a tourist...
Thanks USA - Awesome way to treat our own citizens... I think this is a way to keep us from being too far away from "Home"... even though my home isn't anywhere near the US.
Sep 29, 2016, 6:11 am
#415
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NYC
Programs: AA 2MM, Bonvoy LTT, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,635
Sorry to hear about that.
No change and no bills introduced to extend authorization to issue ABTCs past Sept. 30, 2018 either.
UPDATE - Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act of 2017 became law and removed ABTC sunset clause.
UPDATE - Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act of 2017 became law and removed ABTC sunset clause.
Last edited by seawolf; Nov 12, 2017 at 9:10 pm Reason: Update to reflect ABTC sunset clause has been removed.
Sep 29, 2016, 6:56 am
#416
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tri-State Area
Posts: 4,728
FWIW, there is another thread that discusses experiences in more detail: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trust...riences-q.html.
Last edited by dtsm; Sep 29, 2016 at 7:45 am