seawolf

MPC doesn’t provide CBP with any benefits unless travelers volume increase to the point where APC kiosks are overwhelmed. MPC is essentially just an APC kiosk.

Catbert10

ORD wasn't even using the APC kiosks. I thought it was curious that FAs were passing out the old school forms on the flight; now I understand why.

GUWonder

Even when the APC kiosks in ORD are operating, the non-US airlines going into ORD often hand out the CPB declaration form. Sometimes I take the form and sometimes I don’t. I haven’t submitted a filled-in paper declaration form at ORD on any of my international arrivals into ORD during this pandemic. Staffing for MPC hasn’t been a priority at ORD during this period, but GE has remained a CBP staffing priority. But before and since, there have been times where no separate staffing at ORD has been needed to use MPC at ORD since one (or two) other lanes/counters at ORD would handle MPC digital receipts even when APC was not in use.

Full Score

Surely it's time for Airside Mobile to give us some accurate information about where MPC has been withdrawn. Their list of functioning destinations is totally inaccurate and no reasons are ever given for the unreliability of the system. They take our subscription money and from then on we hear nothing.

HofstraJet

I guess nobody subscribed to the paid version of the app.

seawolf

Apparently MPC/APC are funded primarily by airport terminal owners. TTPs are funded by applicants.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-470.pdf

So if MPC is no longer available, that's because the airport decided to discontinue.

Amil

I did. i have a feeling that there will be a nice class action lawsuit coming

GUWonder

That conclusion about why/where/when MPC gets discontinued doesn't hold up given the history of airports where CBP pulled MPC and then MPC came back after the airport lobbied to get CBP to allow MPC back.

APC is funded by airports and/or airlines. Its funding has varied and still varied -- at least in the lead-up to the pandemic.

Even when some airports have wanted MPC, CBP at times has chosen to disable it or get out of MPC. CBP does the same thing in a way with APC at times, but the more extensive (and expensive) installation base for APC means that cutting it off "permanently" isn't as easy for CBP. Both sorts of CBP cut-offs can be acted upon by way of communicating with relevant stakeholders -- including asking for action by the US Congressional delegation representing constituents at the relevant airports with MPC.

If MPC is discontinued, I would do what I've done before -- communicate with other stakeholders to try to get CBP to put it back on in place.

Catbert10

I'm curious as to why CBP would be anxious to discontinue support for MPC/APC. I get not staffing a separate lane, but why the move (like at ORD) to require the old paper form instead of something digital?

seawolf

I would say APC is cannibalizing MPC advantages for CBP. MPC made sense to CBP before the widespread adoption of APC as it digitalize the custom declaration and eliminate time wasted if a traveler presented themselves for inspection without fully completing the declaration form leading to shorter processing times.

At terminals with APC, MPC doesn't offer CBP anything. It appears both APC and MPC interface with CBP systems the same way. Primary inspection process would be the same. I don't think there is a cost/benefit to CBP between APC vs MPC as CBP is not paying for any MPC-specific infrastructure (covered by terminal owner and app-developer). There's no staffing benefit/constraint to CBP as personnel working MPC queue is more than eligible to work GE queue or a traditional primary inspection station.

I haven't came across anything to suggest CBP favoring MPC vs. APC. I would say APC vs MPC is neutral for CBP. It comes down to who is paying. Not only are terminal operators paying for APC and/or MPC they are also partially paying CBP staffing at the busiest terminals as allowed under section 559/560.

That is why I saying if MPC is cut, it's cut because of the terminal owner not CBP; CBP doesn't care as long as sufficient APC kiosks are in the terminal.

And yes, this is merely speculation.

Full Score

This may well be true, but doesn't address the issue as to why Airside Mobile can simply remain silent whilst its MPC subscribers are left with NO service. Surely they have a responsibility to address the issue!

seawolf

No idea. Maybe terminal owners have zero obligations in keeping Airside Mobile informed of MPC being removed leaving Airside Mobile (and ACI-NA) in the dark whereas a terminal operator enabling MPC has an incentive in letting Airside Mobile know it is available.

N830MH

I don't want hear that. No one ever file lawsuit against CBP. No one!

seawolf

I don't think it was intended toward CBP but Airside Mobile as they offer the in-app subscription for MPC.

GUWonder

Widespread adoption of APC by US airports of entry preceded MPC.

MPC has been up at times in some airports/terminals when APC has been down — including times when APC had outages.

CBP has a history of having cut off MPC at times and places even when the airports, airlines and other stakeholders didn’t want MPC cut off. MPC being turned off or out of service doesn’t bother the airports, airlines, and passengers as much as turning off APC since MPC has had low use volume generally — and extra low use during the pandemic — while APC has had much more extensive use pre-pandemic.

CBP doesn’t have dedicated MPC staffing as a priority, and that’s shown since the beginning of MPC. And as CBP personnel assignments at the MPC airports are generally fungible, CBP does what CBP wants with MPC. It shows when CBP have combined MPC with the regular lanes for diplomats, APEC and/or flight crews; routed MPC users to the CBP personnel handling GE in part; routed MPC users with a shortcut to one or two counters handling MPC users along with other arrivals; or had MPC pulled/switched off (regardless of whether or not APC kiosks were in use at the time and place as competition to MPC).