fastair

I believe you are only allowed to use your nexus card to bypass WHTI (Western Hemisphere travel initiative, an agreement that requires a passport for air/sea border crossings) to cities that have a us CBP presence (preclear airports) there. If I were your gate agent, and you were going to Regina, Saskatoon, or the other non-preclear airports, you might not be flying. YQB isn't a preclear, but I'm not sure if it is a WHTI waived city (or as the link I will post calls them, "designated Canadian airport".)
So Nexus is nice, but there are other rules that may require a passport. http://www.cbp.gov/travel/us-citizen...ram-background note thT returning from Canada, it says nexus OK, IF traveling from an approved airport. I realize that it applies to the US, not the other way around, but there are nuances that COULD make departing to these places on the outbound of a round trip difficult.

And from the link, you will see that this is a direct result of SECURITY, not immigration law. Rules change, it's best to be aware that they do and be current on not just immigration laws, but other security rules that manifest themselves in the immigration processes.

As for insinuating I am incorrect as to if a GA performs a security function by stating that people thought the world was flat, I can assure you with 100% certainty you are misled. Not even mentioning the WHTI, which I have already linked to you, access to the AOA by a passenger is granted by the GA. The SIDA badges that open those doors come with any security rules and fines for improper use. The pulling of bags on PPBM flights when you don't board, another security function. The entering if APIS data when not entered by the passenger, as well as the verifying it, another security function. Many more examples exist, some are SSI, so they won't be mentioned by me, too, are security functions. To state that a GA performs no security function is as absurd as your colorful example in this day in age, to not believe it is like putting your head in the sand. Aviation security is like an onion, there are many overlapping layers some are transparent, some are opaque to the public, but they exist even if you don't accept it.

flyingnosh

That doesn't change anything. Everything happened the way it should. The agent taking boarding passes noticed that OP presented a passport from country X, and the agent didn't know for sure what the Singapore entry requirements are for citizens from country X. That's what triggered the look-up in the computer system.

Ber2dca

It's a bit silly as a complaint..I mean nobody was stranded, nobody was delayed, it was a minor thing that led to a very minor inconvenience for the OP.

The vibe from the OP seems to be that he felt it to be a slight against his country's passport which I assume is Swedish or Finnish that the gate agent had to check it again. That would seem quite unlikely and more based on a misunderstanding of procedure on part of the OP and as a result the entire thread is a bit petty.

Mike Jacoubowsky

I'm curious what the point of all this is. Does anybody here believe that things as presently done are wrong, and that there is a chance to change it for the better? Because you have to believe both of those things for it to really matter.

Otherwise it's just an exercise that's probably best answered on-line in wikis and government security sites, instead of arguing on FT and choosing sides over which person is right and which person is wrong.

And finally, I don't think any of us have any right to know exactly how security works, nor do we have any right, or even an expectation, that it should be applied consistently. If I were a terrorist, a certain element of randomness in security would be the toughest thing to try and get around.

I'm fine with giving the OP empathy for what he had to go through. But I don't think any of us are owed something for the inconveniences of unexpected security measures, if they didn't prevent us from our planned travels. Obviously, my opinion only.

emcampbe

AFAIK, a Nexus card is only approved as a WHTI-compliant document for air travel when used at a Kiosk. That said, the kiosk doesn't work, or you are sent to secondary, and asked for your passport, then you are basically SOL. The question comes up in the Nexus info. thread constantly if you can travel on a Nexus card without ones passport. Sure, it's theoretically possible to do it. But I would never, ever put my Nexus at risk for this - my passport can stay in my pocket if it isn't needed, and I have it if it is.

As for GAs, I find most will not accept a Nexus card anyway. So rather than try and explain, etc., I find it's far easier to just use show my passport at the gate. GAs all know what it is and is always checked in seconds.

Often1

It's called Schengen. For purposes of border crossing, you were within what amounts to one country. That's not the case elsewhere.

And, it has zippo to do with OP's situation.

The bottom line is that both Singapore and Canada would fine UA if OP showed up without proper docs. So, UA checks the docs. It's that simple and actually had zippo to do with US border and transit law.

Scott6067

Checking documents at the gate:

1. All passengers are checked to ensure that they have their physical passport to go on an international flight. Some agents look at the pic some just want to see the physical passport.

2. For Canadian flights specifically, we do a full DOC Check at the gate similar to the DOC check you get at check in. This means we are making sure that the person with their passport has the ability to enter Canada. Some agents that work this flight regularly, have knowledge of the passports and the requirements and don't have to do a full timatic check for each passport they see at the gate while others that work the flight less often have to verify via Timatic your ability to enter Canada.

So in truth we can and do check for passports on all international flights. What we look for when check can be as simple as what is in point 1 or for specifically Canadian flights we do part 2. Hope that clears it up.

The reason the gate agent probably asked what country the OP had a passport from is that they may work that flight often, have knowledge of acceptable ones, and when they didn't have knowledge of the OP country and visa requirements, they sent them to get recertified.

horse glasses

What exactly is "a pretty decent country"?

adambrau

I had a Canadian friend fly Delta from JFK to Amsterdam. The agent asked her if she needed a visa for Holland, to which my friend responded "no I don't need a visa for Holland, but I have a work visa for the Netherlands". Agent responded she "didn't know about the Netherlands but it doesn't matter because you are flying to Holland". After a lengthy exchange agent still didn't want to discuss geography, even though Holland is just a province in the Netherlands

Eastbay1K

I trust you mean country. It is hard to tell residents apart between certain counties.

Seriously, the penalties to an airline if someone shows up in country X without proper documentation are not insignificant. While docs may have been checked at check-in, at security, and maybe somewhere else, too, a passport could have fallen out or have been pilfered somewhere in transit between the time the passenger last presented it and the time of embarkation.

ani90

Even worse - this is one of the more bizarre complaints threads as it is even harder to understand what is being complained about. Op is complaining because he was pulled aside to have documents verified??? Whether systematic or random or targeted is not too relevant - but one complains about being checked??? And suggesting too that this has anything to do with UA or US? Anyone who has travelled enough, internationally, at one point or another would have had similar experience in a non-US country flying an airline that was not UA. Some pax have even been taken off a boarded plane to be checked a third time. What next will we be complaining about?

Bigger question is what the OP regards as indecent countries...

nanyang

heehee

Don't think that was an issue!

I think it was Canadian entry requirements they were concerned about.

Do they do that at EWR? A check-in agent will have to check your travel docs there in many cases (like this one), but can't remember a stamp...

I just think how the situation was handled was very annoying. It's a different environment vs. ASPAC region for sure.

I agree UA made an effort with recovery here.

I think you must be right - I've flown between the US and Canada a few times over the years, and the process can be a little bit different.

ERJ-145 - that's a fair comment re bin space ^

Yes, I have flown on LY and been to TLV. It can be interesting, and I appreciate ethnic profiling etc. is a must for them.

Now, it is a slightly different thing being inconvenienced by a gate agent at EWR vs. someone from shin bet / LY security doing their jobs. I did not get the impression this check was handled too professionally.

As for Singapore, these issues are taken very seriously.

I certainly had my passport available upon boarding. It is just the fact that a passport issued by Finland (let's be clear about that then) apparently was a concern for the gate agent.

In this context, I would assume there are not many citizens of Finland who are in e.g. Canada or the US illegally at the moment.

Mats

The airlines have often discussed how frustrating it is that they have the responsibility of enforcing foreign government requirements.

But an agent in Newark was telling me how a 777 had to stop on a taxiway and get a passenger off because he or she didn't have a valid passport or visa for India. It was cheaper for United to stop the plane and take the delay than pay the fine for sending someone without proper documents.

The conversation started because United and Continental keep changing their document check procedures. The gate agent was laughing because the procedure keeps changing. Within the past year, I've had:

a. Have passport checked at United Club, then just presented prior to boarding (no stamp or handwriting)

b. All passengers go to the podium to have their passports checked (no stamp or handwriting).

c. All passengers go to the podium and have two lines drawn across their boarding card with a magic marker.

d. Nobody goes to the podium; just show your passport prior to boarding the aircraft.

All of this has varied just over the past year.

I haven't seen the "DOCS OK" stamps at United for a long time. But that just might be my experience.

Continental used to require passengers to present their passport prior to boarding flights to Newark if the passenger was traveling on an international flight from Newark. This was in the era of printed boarding cards, which say "INTL" at the the top. Now that many of us use electronic boarding cards, that's not always a choice.

The biggest snag is that I've been able to check bags on an international itinerary with just a driver's license. The AirServ agents don't necessarily check a passport at check-in, so any ID is sufficient. Likewise, a passenger with no checked bags on a domestic segment of an international itinerary can just present a driver's license to the TSA document checker.

This sometimes works for international flights too. Their job is to check a valid ID, not necessarily the valid ID for that flight.

Bottom line: United's procedures change a lot, and there are loopholes. The consequences of a screw-up are really expensive.

Sadly, I never want to see a passenger "singled out" for any immigration or security reason at the gate. It's an inadvertent public humiliation that should be avoided by the airlines, the TSA, and CBP.

adagio

This is key to understand. It may be all financial for the airlines. They may be the point of how the rule works, but not the point of why the rule is there.

How would you design a security system where you have millions of people per day moving through what you want to secure and only a very tiny percentage of those millions, if any at any given time, are looking to do harm (whether as a terrorist or as someone who is just deranged or wants to commit suicide.) One way is to set up many little obstacles to be navigated, with the notion that at some point one or more of the obstacles may assist in identifying who needs a closer look. And why would any one of those points that you set up as obstacles want to help---they won't because it costs them resources. So you provide incentives for their participation (fines are a common regulatory negative incentive) to change their calculations.

Even better if the "rule" or process serves other purposes, and so will be seen by those subjected to it as something else altogether and not a type of "security screen." Look around mindfully and see over time how often you can see design, whether in the building or the processes, that may not look like it but which also serves security in that they can help to identify passengers who may be potential security-risks, out of the millions, to watch a bit closer.

Now, most of those signals will be negative, so you may want many of them along the physical path passengers take---someone who starts to fail more than one will stand out. But it is better than just lining everyone up and doing intense security screening on each one of them as they enter the airport. Unless you are at TLV...then you might just do that.

Cargojon

Of course the airlines play a part in the security, whether it is the GA or the luggage handler that see a funny fluid leaking from a bag. From the cargo side, I can assure you that each an every individual that takes part in a cargo shipment is part of the security process and has to undergo significant training. I'm not getting into SSI but to fail to acknowledge a GA as part of the security process is simply boneheaded.

This is one of the most trivial complaints I've seen on here in a while and belongs in the "What is the least substantial UA complaint thread" and I can't believe this thing has gone 5 pages by now. smh