UK may allow US security checks on passengers before transatlantic travel
 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...cks-passengers

Interesting article with some comments from other countries being considered (France wants compensation).

I have doubt that. US-European will have US preclearance facility.

I think they will have US preclearance facility is:

AMS
FRA
MUC
CDG
ZRH
MAD or BCN.

It will help to reduce the congestion at US Airports.

Only DUB has preclearance as of now?

Well Ireland already has preclearance, though that is not part of the UK, which proves its convenience BUT doesn't handle nearly the amount of traffic as LHR which has numerous carriers flying into various terminals.

I doubt MAD or BCN would get it but AMS, FRA, ZRH, CDG & FCO seem appropriate.

And SNN.

If what is being proposed is the same CBP pre-clearance we have in Canada it is a desirable system. We pre-clear U.S. Customs and Immigration in Toronto before boarding the aircraft and are treated like any other U.S. domestic flight thereafter.

Having entered the USA hundreds of times via this system it is a faster and more positive experience than the times I've come into the U.S. from Asia, Oceania or Africa. It also means if you are denied entry you just go back home the way you came instead of having to arrange an immediate return flight.

It's a garbage article. Instead of saying what it really is - you go through US immigration and customs in Britain, then the flights are treated as domestic flights when they hit the US.

It would certainly require a dedicated terminal for US flights, and I don't think that's possible at most airports. There are a huge number of flights to the US from there, on a lot of different airlines. An airline like BA would have a triple system of terminals/gates in use at LHR. One for US flights, one for domestic/CTA flights, and one for all non-US international flights.

Preclearance makes sense at the bigger Canadian airports, where a huge percentage of traffic is going to the US and on US carriers.

There are many reasons against this approach:
1. It would mean that you had to be significantly earlier at the origin airport
2. It would kill MCTs to US based flights with current schedules. Add 30 min minimum, every time
3. It would, as noted before, mean significant changes to the airport layout, including lounges etc.
4. At several airports, there are many US bound flights during a short period of time and then none for a longer time. So there would be a huge queue and then nothing for a long time
5. It is generally questionable if foreign authorities should be allowed to work within another country's border

In total, it would be a much better approach to deploy the additional staff needed for these security checks to the US destination airports where they belong.

Regards
Stepfel

The Administration wants to push out US border and other enforcement measures to: (a) further limit VWP country and/or US nationals from flying from (or via) Europe and possibly arriving in the US without the US physically vetting the passengers prior to flight; and (b) further limit people from less developed countries from arriving in the US and claiming asylum/refugee status.

Amongst other things, this US pursuit is meant to reduce: the possibility of the US aviation blacklists from being as readily evaded; and the possibility of fraudulent use of real passports to travel to the US.

I am not surprised our UK government lapdog agreed to this. I hope the other EU countries tell us to go pound sand rather than even taking steps to let us pay up for it in part or full (for then the US will just end up charging us more to travel internationally by hiking fees).

As long as the governments are having airport security screeners properly focusing on and engaging in effective interdiction of contraband weapons, explosives and incendiaries ("WEI") (via screening passengers, bags, cargo and other conveyance), and as long as the cockpits are secure, then I don't really care who is on my flight. Any bad actors missed by European authorities can be stopped without doing these CBP pre-clearance build outs -- stopped on arrival in the US and by effectively screening for WEIs prior to departure.

I find CBP PreClearance a time-wasting bottleneck way too often, and I find it unnecessary to secure my flights. If the UK does this, consider this another reason for me to minimize flying via the UK on my US-bound trips.

PreClearance may make sense at Canadian airports, but it's not going to make sense in the same way for flights from Europe. Even for flights from via Canada, CBP PreClearance can be a hassle.

As a matter of technicality, just because PreClearance agreements and implementation in one country allows for CBP immigration and customs clearance in the other country doesn't mean it will be allowed to work that way in all other countries. Canada allows for it, but it comes with some additional bottlenecks (even for someone with GE/NEXUS status) that wouldn't necessarily be there if CBP PreClearance wasn't part of the picture.

The reason Canada and the US went for CBP PreClearance was to further integration of the Canada-US passenger airline networks and to try to make things more convenient for passengers. This US push in Europe for this kind of facility is motivated by the government's paranoia; it is not motivated by an interest in making travel easier/faster.

I hate going through preclearence. For a simple one-hour flight from Toronto to Dullles, I need to get to YYZ 2.5 hours before a flight - minimum - since you never know how long it will take to get through ICE. I've done it in less than 5 minutes once, but it's taken up to an hour.

I would much rather go through ICE at Dulles where I know that, regardless of how long ICE takes, I'll be home 15 minutes after I leave Customs.

Same here.

And even as an AC-AC international transit passenger at YYZ for say a Europe-Canada-US routing, if I have checked luggage, then I'm frequently worse off with PreClearance than if I just did the whole US CBP process at a US airport instead of at YYZ.

This kind of thing in Europe has the possibility of being an even worse blunder than that which we've witnessed at AUH.

The UK is not in any position to reject out of hand such a proposal as it already operates a similar pre clearance in France for those using the tunnel. Indeed the officers were at one point inspecting Belgium nationals illegally on trains when they were not going to the Uk.

Pre clearance has many benefits for the passenger but the practicalities of operating such a system are huge but may be surmountable with significant investment.

The issues today are many ranging from US suspicion of everyone entering the country who is not a US national, to broken systems and insufficient resources being made available at US entry points.

There is an arrogance that says people will travel regardless of inconvenience but whilst that may be true of business travel I think it is now a big consideration for leisure travel. 10 hours or more to cross an ocean is a well an good, but if you then have to stand in line for 2 or 3 hours and be treated badly whilst doing so, is not the welcome many want.

I recently entered via DFW and what a pleasant surprise it was. Automated systems ( which did not work ) and well manned and reasonable numbers immigration staff. Meanwhile JFK is simply vile and LAX horrific.
Mind you, arriving at LHR as a UK/EU natioNal can be pretty unpleasant. What is must be like for real foreigners I can't begin to imagine.
But it does not have to be so, Singapore leads the way with immaculate, well mannered and thoroughly pleasant and welcoming officers. Yet they still can post death to drug traffickers on the bottom of the landing card!
The answer therefore is pre clearance but not boots on the ground pre clearance. Use systems and effective IT to profile passengers in advance of travel. My family on a two week trip to Disney land with an 80 year granny is not a threat but we are treated as one and that needs to stop. Take my finger prints if you must, my picture also but please do so efficiently, pleasantly in a welcoming manner. I am even happy for you to keep it if it will help me enter again in 12 months time!

Pre clearance works well in DUB and makes for a much more pleasant experience. Not sure that it would work in the UK purely for logistical reasons I am also curious as to who will pay for it? One thing which i suspect is that it would kill LCY - NYC. The time advantage would be lost as the baby bird would still need to refuel

X2 on LAX and JFK. ORD and MIA are also miserable experiences. I'd much rather do pre-clearance through Canada.

Canada manages pre-clearance to the USA without some of the imagined horror stories related above. The fact is you are going to spend time going through CBP screening either before you fly or after and it is better in my experience to do it at home than when you arrive.

I don't arrive at the airport earlier because I'm going to the U.S. than any other international flight but I am not a Last Minute Larry who thinks it's cool to arrive at the gate just before the door closes.

As for LHR, as a non-EU resident it isn't that nasty. The longest I've waited was 53 minutes and I'd guess my typical wait is about 20 minutes.

Canadians tend to like the preclearance at Canadian airports because, worse case scenario, you turn around and go home. Americans don't have that option, and ICE treats us just as badly as Canadians or foreigners. Especially at YYZ, where there is no separate line for US citizens at Immigration.

Also, no one said a thing about showing up at the airport last minute. I said that I need to get there at least 2.5 hours early, instead of an hour or so. That's a big deal, especially if it's an early flight.