Preclearance Expansion [merged threads]
 

I'm not the biggest fan of preclearance since it slows things down for those of us with Global Entry but I'm hoping that, if this comes to pass, it will be implemeted more efficiently than it has in the past.

U.S. to Expand Customs Preclearance to Nine New Countries
Above appeared in Frequent Business Traveler magazine, where I serve as ed.dir.

How so? We have had pre-clearance in Canada for ages and can use GE/NEXUS there. In my experience it is no slower than arriving at a US airport.

Look at reports about the Abu Dhabi facility. Canada preclearance does work pretty well, I will admit.

YYZ preclearance in the early morning has sometimes been a disaster for me relative to what would have been the case had I just arrived in the US at the same time but on a non-preclearance flight.

I don't welcome CBP preclearance at more EU airports. It will increase the amount of time I have to spend at airports on my way back to the U.S.; and it comes with other disadvantages too.

I hate preclearance because I don't want to have to arrive at the airport early and then be trapped in a holding pen. I much prefer to do all CBP procedures in the USA at my international gateway arrival airport.

The thread title is grossly misleading. All that has happened is that the US has announced its intention to seek to negotiate. This means that it is not even negotiating and it means that not one of the affected nations (or airport operators) has signaled a willingness to negotiate.

Before this goes off the rails, would be good to get this corrected.

Thank you. Thread title corrected.

cblaisd, Moderator
Travel News

That is incorrect, as numerous airports owners/operators have already signaled a willingness to negotiate to get CBP Preclearance implemented and discussions with the involved governments have already taken place as part of this pursuit by airport owners/operators in response to a DHS pursuit to expand itself overseas even further. The current thread title is misleading, as the U.S. has been seeking to expand CBP Preclearance overseas well before this year started. The current DHS push for international expansion is not new to this year.

There are existing posts on this topic elsewhere on FT already:

US pushes more European countries to allow for US CBP pre-clearance facilities

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/sas-e...clearance.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/sas-e...clearance.html

Good to not see Germany on that list. Seem like a major infringement on a country's sovereignty to allow another country to set up these types of facilities on their territory.

Assuming that the US would want to maintain a faster lane for US citizens, this would mean that the citizens of the countries where these are set up would be sent to the slower line and discriminated against in their own countries.

I can see how this logistically makes sense in Canada where because of geographic proximity an airline might want to fly to smaller airports in the US that don't have international facilities. I don't see that same case for European airports.

DHS officially "intending" to expand preclearance in various airports.
 

http://www.dhs.gov/news/2015/05/29/d...0-new-airports

Money quote:

Interesting list, with a few very noticeable candidates missing.

The UK, alone from this list, gets two to tie with Ireland (and the Bahamas). LHR was an obvious first choice (though which terminal(s) will include the facilities is an interesting question), and MAN is reasonable for the second. LGW fans are sad (especially since this probably helps LHR in the LHR/LGW "who gets the expansion" fight). As much as I like BHX, it was never in the running, and I don't think any of the Scottish airports have enough US service to justify preclearance.

So many airports in continental Europe (6 of the 10, since IST is on the European side of the line), but no love for CDG, FRA, or CPH? How much US service do OSL and ARN have compared to those three? (For that matter, how much US service does BRU have these days? I haven't flown through there since Sabena still existed....)

AMS was always extremely likely to be part of an expansion of preclearance to continental Europe, given the combination of significant US service and existing customs/security cooperation with the US (Privium/Flux, etc).

NRT was a clear choice for that part of the world. ICN fans are sad. I wonder if this will shift any of the HND-US service?

PUJ is the only one in the Americas. Porter Airlines and other YTZ fans are sad.

Why MAN and not say, SYD?

I honestly don't think LHR will get past the talking phase until they actually decide what to do about the with the whole London airports fiasco.

The only airport I could understand preclearance is PUJ, since it's a common charter/leisure destination and it eliminates checks at smaller US airports and almost all travellers are originating in PUJ.
I am anti-european preclearances, since the major airports are all hubs with a lot of transfer passengers, for them preclearance will be hit or miss. How do I benefit, if I would catch my flight in the US, but missed my TATL because of Immigration.

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.

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.