Preclearance Expansion [merged threads]
May 31, 2015 | 6:39 am
#16
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 660
Does anyone know whether these airports actually want preclearance? What are the governments of the countries with these airports, and the airports will approve this in a timely fashion?
Going through pre-clearance often seems to be more of a hassle if one is connecting from other airports, particularly in Europe.
I was surprised that Munich and Frankfurt were left off the list, with their large number of flights to the US. The way that Munich currently separates many US flights, it is actually one place where pre-clearance would likely not add to the hassle that already exists.
Going through pre-clearance often seems to be more of a hassle if one is connecting from other airports, particularly in Europe.
I was surprised that Munich and Frankfurt were left off the list, with their large number of flights to the US. The way that Munich currently separates many US flights, it is actually one place where pre-clearance would likely not add to the hassle that already exists.
May 31, 2015 | 7:44 am
#17
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Does anyone know whether these airports actually want preclearance? What are the governments of the countries with these airports, and the airports will approve this in a timely fashion?
Going through pre-clearance often seems to be more of a hassle if one is connecting from other airports, particularly in Europe.
I was surprised that Munich and Frankfurt were left off the list, with their large number of flights to the US. The way that Munich currently separates many US flights, it is actually one place where pre-clearance would likely not add to the hassle that already exists.
Going through pre-clearance often seems to be more of a hassle if one is connecting from other airports, particularly in Europe.
I was surprised that Munich and Frankfurt were left off the list, with their large number of flights to the US. The way that Munich currently separates many US flights, it is actually one place where pre-clearance would likely not add to the hassle that already exists.
The German government is in more of a pickle situation due to the USG-spying on so many innocent people in Europe and elsewhere. Thus their entering into a public agreement to have CBP Preclearance on German soil may not go over so well with large segments of the German population at the moment.
Last edited by GUWonder; May 31, 2015 at 7:49 am
May 31, 2015 | 10:01 am
#18
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 24
@GUWonder
Total agree on you. However I would support preclerance at places where it's useful, such as Cancun or Mexico City. This way CPB could close some of the smaller US international arrival facilities. I wonder why there has never been any intention of doing so.
Total agree on you. However I would support preclerance at places where it's useful, such as Cancun or Mexico City. This way CPB could close some of the smaller US international arrival facilities. I wonder why there has never been any intention of doing so.
May 31, 2015 | 11:02 am
#19
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 962
This CBP push for more preclearance facilities in the "Old World" is not being done to improve my travel experience or lower the cost for travel and/or passenger processing for immigration/customs purposes; it is being pursued by the U.S., using sticks and carrots, due to paranoia about travelers to the US being terrorists, other criminals, or otherwise inadmissible to fly to and/or enter the U.S.
If only the majority of folks understood this to be the real reason why. AUH demonstrated how bad it is and that was with only 6-7 flights per day. Now just imagine LHR on a typical day with 75-100 flights going to the U.S. what CBP processing will be like.
May 31, 2015 | 11:29 am
#20
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NW London and NW Sydney
Programs: BA Diamond, Hilton Bronze, A3 Diamond, IHG *G
Posts: 7,149
I am against this for the same reasons as GUWonder. However one good thing about preclearance is that if one is denied entry, then one does not need to be detained on US soil and can just turn back. I don't travel to the USA, but if I ever were to in the future, this would be a positive for me personally even though I expect that I am unlikely to be denied entry.
May 31, 2015 | 1:20 pm
#21
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Yes for CUN, which is also why I am fine with Punta Cana getting this, even as (or perhaps because) I don't frequent these places from which to fly to small US airports. That said, I'm not sure how well this would go with the Mexican government/public.
May 31, 2015 | 2:59 pm
#22
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
DHS, the local US embassies in these countries, these countries' host governments and the involved airport owners/operators indicated by DHS in this release have all worked together to get this ball rolling and agreed to jointly pursue implementation.
DHS intends to get this in place in way more European airports, but the other governments or airport owner/operators are facing domestic opposition to committing to pursue what DHS wants them to do and thus haven't been mentioned in the latest releases.
DHS intends to get this in place in way more European airports, but the other governments or airport owner/operators are facing domestic opposition to committing to pursue what DHS wants them to do and thus haven't been mentioned in the latest releases.
Jun 1, 2015 | 1:50 pm
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,859
I strongly oppose the CBP preclearance expansion push into Europe as it will make for worse travel experiences for me as a very frequent EU-US passenger (with most of these mentioned airports being used repeatedly by me as a transit passenger or an O&D passenger). The check-in cut-off times will be worse as a result of this, and the lines will generally be worse for me in Europe with CBP preclearance during peak travel times than in the U.S during peak travel times for EU-US travel.
That's the practical aspect. Then you have to have a whole throng of DHS agents set up overseas. So then they're getting paid to live, on top of additional salary due to being abroad. I'd rather they focus on performing well in the US before they start screwing around all over the world.
Jun 1, 2015 | 6:34 pm
#25
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,966
Note that the press release states the obvious - that "wait times upon arrival at the busiest U.S. airports" will be reduced. Of course wait times at all US airports will be reduced if immigration and customs is handled pre-departure. The press release makes no claim as to "door to door" travel time.
Without pre-clearance, you dedicate exactly as much time as is necessary for immigration/customs formalities - the time from when you get on line at immigration after you land, until you walk out of the customs hall.
With pre-clearance, you never know how long it will take you to get through, so you must allow extra time to be safe, so you are spending more time at the airport.
Without pre-clearance, you dedicate exactly as much time as is necessary for immigration/customs formalities - the time from when you get on line at immigration after you land, until you walk out of the customs hall.
With pre-clearance, you never know how long it will take you to get through, so you must allow extra time to be safe, so you are spending more time at the airport.
Jun 1, 2015 | 11:49 pm
#26
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Rapids Reward
Posts: 40,129
Jun 4, 2015 | 4:43 pm
#27
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: STL
Posts: 1,574
I've always wondered if the US would reciprocate and allow another country to put a pre-clearance facility in a US airport. You could certainly make an argument for a British or Schengen PC facility at a major US hub like JFK, there's definitely enough traffic for it.
Jun 4, 2015 | 5:04 pm
#28
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 42,601
Everyone inbound to the USA, no matter final destination, must be admissible into the USA. Everyone flying to the USA has to go through full formalities to transit the USA. This is not the case for many other hubs. I'd imagine on a typical US-FRA flight, probably 25% or more of the plane doesn't need Schengen processing. And for those who require a Visa? There goes that connection.
Jun 4, 2015 | 7:07 pm
#30
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: STL
Posts: 1,574
It is much more complicated the other way.
Everyone inbound to the USA, no matter final destination, must be admissible into the USA. Everyone flying to the USA has to go through full formalities to transit the USA. This is not the case for many other hubs. I'd imagine on a typical US-FRA flight, probably 25% or more of the plane doesn't need Schengen processing. And for those who require a Visa? There goes that connection.
Everyone inbound to the USA, no matter final destination, must be admissible into the USA. Everyone flying to the USA has to go through full formalities to transit the USA. This is not the case for many other hubs. I'd imagine on a typical US-FRA flight, probably 25% or more of the plane doesn't need Schengen processing. And for those who require a Visa? There goes that connection.