B752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8 Posted (12 years 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4816 times:
For some reason, the US government is more strict with the security measures for the people entering the US from another country.
Today, MIA waked up with some bad news for the airlines and pax.
All of the ITI pax (International to International) passengers have to go trough US customs, and claim their luggage and then go by the customs X-Rays and then to take the bags to the airline.
Lets give an example.
Passengers arriving from Madrid on IB that continue their flight to Cancun (since IB does not have a direct flight it stops in MIA to change a/c), these pax go trough immigration (that's normal) then claim their luggage, go trough customs, then taking it to the airline, then to go back trough the security checkpoints (caos) and then to the gate, when that type of operation was made in a half an hour by only passing trough immigration then to the In-transit lounge.
This means delays, not only with IB, but to all of the international carriers.
When you as a pax check in at any international airport for example (LHR) your final destination is LPB (with a stop in the US), in the ticket counter in London Heathrow your luggage is check all the way to La Paz, so you don't have to pick up your luggage and check it in at the airline your are flying to continue to your final destination.
Since we live in a free country, I don't believe that this is a good system.
This is going to hurt more the tourism in the US, and the airlines that are struggling from the downfall of 9-11.
"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
JpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4537 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (12 years 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4767 times:
I agree this is a major inconvenience for passengers connecting through the US, but this is also a very good sign for TSA and the government. They have used intelligence information and cracked down on this serious loophole in security, this is being done for a reason. This recent procedure being put in place is indeed a pain in the a$$, and will have to be dealt with. A small (hopefully momentary) sacrafice in the name of security.
Osteogenesis From Germany, joined May 2003, 647 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (12 years 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4705 times:
What really hurts the US tourism is the tough visa requirements.
I had planed to make a trip to the US (east cost) this summer with my wife and daughter. I don’t need a visa because I am German. But I knew my wife and daughter needed because they are Mexicans.
When I called the consulate in Frankfurt I was just astonished on all the requirements for them to get the Visa. I understand the problem with all the Mexican illegal immigrants, but it was very easy to see that the case of my wife is very different. The guy of the consulate on the phone talked for about 15 minutes telling me all the requirements. I decided to make vacations in Europe and wait until my wife get the German nationality for our next US vacation.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 17229 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (12 years 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4702 times:
"I said it hurts the US tourism, because those that transit in the US, will not come back after all of the security measures that are taken place in their short visit."
They go through no more of a hassle than if they were going to enter the US on vacation/business/visit etc , they have to clear customs. No more or less than what usually happens when you enter the US.
Also I think the amount of transient passengers turned away will be minor, and the added security justifies the extra pre-caution.
Unless they develop a "transit" visa or something which would pre-screen folks passing through, even if their final destination were another foreign destination.
If they can develop a conveinant "transit" visa that speeds the process yet checks out who's flying I think the hassle factor can be lessened.
N949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (12 years 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4612 times:
More airlines will look for alternate transit hubs outside the US or fly non-stop altogether. Bad news for US airports (revenue from landing fees, fuel purchases, services, etc.) and spotters (reduced traffic).
I recalled when US authorities required the same nonsense even for flights on technical stops, Cathay immediately re-routed their YYZ flight to tech-stop at YVR, bypassing the normal stop at ANC.