sbiddle

I've never been through this transfer security as the times I've transited NZ6 - NZ2 or NZ1 - NZ5 have been when I've headed outside to enjoy some fresh SoCal air after dropping off my bags.

It does pose the question though of why they don't use this area for NZ2/NZ1 transit pax as presumably it's always going to be quicker than the regular mezzanine floor TSA screening?

JayKiwi

One reason would be that on more than one occasion (including when I was in transit from LHR) I have deliberately headed to that quieter TSA checkpoint and found it closed - who knows why. This is actually one of things that really frustrates me with the LAX transit experience: things get changed, swapped, and altered all the time, in terms of US entry and TSA approach point positions etc. You almost never know what is going to happen and where to head for the most likely streamlined transit through TSA etc.

In a perfect world, NZ transit pax would go to a specific single TSA desk for only processing that flight (a little like the old process straight off the aircraft), and then head to that quicker transit TSA checkpoint in an expedited fashion. Can't see that happening any time soon though!

sbiddle

NZ do want to improve the transit experience and did report on meeting last year with US officials to work on that. I'm just not sure how much influence they'd have when it comes to having a special area for their ~150-200 or so transiting pax which then takes you back to looking at a transit lounge like they had previously which then removes lounge access as an option.

nzkarit

Does TBIT have any non international departures? Could they make the whole thing a sterile area? Or does the US have laws stopping the sterile departure area concept?

Thought I think LAX is busiest Origin and Departure airport and people don't do international transit there. So isn't the business driver for being sterile. And geographically the US isn't positioned to be an international hub. Just the corner cases of Pacific to Europe transit. Is Canada to South America overfly or do those flights do immigration in Canada so arrive in US as domestic flights.

Or AKL airport could push for a US Border post like Canada or Shannon so the flights into the US arrive "domestically"? Then they could let you off the plane directly into the departures area? So this "problem" could be solved in Auckland. Though NZ 1 would still arrive internationally into TBIT. But NZ2 and all the other flights to the US would be straight off. Though assumes TBIT has domestic baggage belts.

JamesBigglesworth

They've been taking fingerprints a lot longer than that.

JamesBigglesworth

No. NonononoNONONO. AKL airport might ask for it all they want, but NZ Immigration would fight them every step of the way.

I know a couple of people that work at the mid and high levels in NZ Immigration and they want nothing to do with US CBP if they can avoid it. They positively hate working with them. They even prefer the Italians (who they regard as lazy to the point of incompetence (oh, the stories and examples they have for the Italians...!)) to dealing with the Americans. The last thing I would want is the US Government setting up shop and applying US law in NZ.

jawnbc

I can't recall any US airports with a genuine I/I transit area: they've all required entering the US while in transit (HNL LAX SFO JFK ORD SEA MIA IAH over the years). Even the HNL "super hub" required going through US immigration in the middle of the night when transferring between CP/AC and NZ/QF.

jawnbc

Useful map of LAX inter-terminal connections http://www.laxishappening.com/assets...Tunnel-Map.pdf

southpac

the amazing thing is people wanting to go to USA but not LA, think they have to go thru LAX. SFO is so much better than LAX & has almost the same number of connecting flights. We choose SFO whenever we can rather than LAX to go beyond west coast.

southpac

have flown Southwest a few times when had to go via LAX (rather than SFO) & walk from TBIT was not that far. Took us about 10 mins brisk walk.

Kumulani

Certainly there are scenarios where a new passport could result in an X. Such as, changes in the data formatting which make it difficult for CBP to match your fingerprints. But that doesn't mean it's supposed to happen. The CBP agent was misinformed. Again, all you have to do is read the many threads on this forum about this specific issue where people had no problems.

This is not what happened. The connections checkpoint is for all airlines, not just AA. As a matter of a fact, it's airport policy that you can access any TSA checkpoint at LAX with any same-day boarding pass. If you were denied access, the checkpoint was closed. It does have more limited hours than the main checkpoint.

Yes, TBIT has domestic departures on AA. So the sterile international area is a no go. Plus, that would make it impossible to access the TBIT lounges when departing on domestic flights from other terminals.

True, but it's only since 2008 that they've been applying the latest protocols and taking all fingerprints.

What does preclearance have to to do with NZ immigration? NZ immigration deals with people entering NZ, preclearance is for people entering the US. Totally different things. The only time NZ immigration would have to get involved at all is if someone was transiting AKL and denied entry to the US. Then they would either have to be admitted to NZ or sent back home. Hardly something that requires a ton of collaboration. And I don't think you understand how preclearance works anyway. It's not "applying US law in NZ" - the preclearance area would be subject to NZ law alone and policed by NZ police. US CBP does not have powers of detention or arrest outside of the US. Also, I would find it very strange if the NZ authorities were uniquely incapable of working with the US, given the several countries that already have preclearance, and the many more that are on track to get it, seem to be managing just fine...

JamesBigglesworth

The US immigration officers work under the nominal auspices of the hosting nation Immigration departments.


Oh, I think I'm reasonably comfortable with my understanding of how it works, thanks. And I disagree: the entire point of US pre-clearance outside the US is for US CBP to apply/deny entry prior to arrival in the US: it is, by definition, the application of US law in NZ. If they are denied entry (and consequently, boarding) then the person is returned to the NZ side.

NZ Police do not have anything to do with Immigration entry or exit, per se. That's the domain of Immigration NZ. But more to your point, US CBP would *require* the CBP staff to be immune to NZ law within the pre-clearance area, and would have a SoF-esque agreement in place for them outside, just as they do for US military at Harewood. CBP wouldn't do a pre-clearance system/station without such an agreement in place.


You've never dealt with the US, have you? They think they have all sorts of powers outside the US. To give you one example, CBP work with US Coast Guard to regularly detain & arrest drug smugglers in international waters off the coast of Columbia. They then take them to the US to prosecute. It doesn't matter where they were headed or that they were in international waters, the US claims US domestic law applies.


I didn't say they couldn't. I said that of the people I know in Immigration NZ, none of them like or particularly want to work with the Americans in CBP. State is mostly sane and reasonable, but CBP and TSA are not well regarded.

sbiddle

Reminds me very much of the private security at AKL that is responsible for secondary screening of pax on US bound flights seemingly under US legislation because they're not covered under NZ law as the powers only apply to Avsec officers.

This made the news last year when Murray McCully (our foreign minister at the time) who was subjected to secondary screening despite traveling on a diplomatic passport.

nzkarit

You does realise the SITA checks at checkin do this as well already? So pretty much ever country is already applying foreign laws. If the destination country says no, the airline won't even let you get a boarding or let go airside. Isn't it better for the US to say no and turn you around at Auckland opposed to getting to the US and then put in holding and then put on a plane back to NZ?

Do you have a link to that with their current implementations in Shannon or Canada? What NZ laws could they break in the few square metres they have? To detain someone and extradite them they would still need to travel through sterile NZ areas and the airline would have to accept them as well. Plus if there was a warrant out for the person they would be stopped when they pass through NZ immigration if not at checkin.



International Maritime law allows for this. NZ authorities have busted ships heading for NZ with drugs and the NZ Military has been involved in anti pirate task forces.

nzkarit

Though is it law or T&Cs you are on private property and about to go on a private plane? They don't have to let you be there if you don't follow the T&Cs.