Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A Real Bad Situation For The Airlines And The Pax  
User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4132 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
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16819 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4103 times:

"This is going to hurt more the tourism in the US"

I agree this is bad for the airlines but how is it bad for US tourism, these folks are transiting and never entering the Country.

You actually have to leave the departure area of an airport to be considered a "tourist".



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4378 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4083 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.

Justin



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4066 times:

Hopefully,

Is something that will prevent any terror attacks.

But I think doing something else would had been better.

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 will think that going again to the US to spend a few days will be having the worst vacation ever.

And those that dont know, those in transit pax, pay fees, and taxes, all of them in US currency, and that money goes to the US economy.

[Edited 2003-08-01 06:34:24]


"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
User currently offlineOsteogenesis From Germany, joined May 2003, 647 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4021 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.



User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16819 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4018 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.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3984 times:

Unless they develop a "transit" visa or something which would pre-screen folks passing through, even if their final destination were another foreign destination.

The US has a C-1 transit visa for this very purpose, but it is prohibitively expensive (upto US$225 PER TRANSIT) and a major hassle (upto 6 months waiting) to obtain.


User currently offlineN949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days ago) and read 3928 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.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bad News For EU Airlines posted Fri Dec 6 2002 08:42:13 by LJ
For All The Airlines TV Commercial Freak Out There posted Thu Sep 14 2006 09:14:07 by YLWbased
2005 A Bad Year For The American Airline Industry? posted Tue Jan 31 2006 23:11:22 by JetBlueGuy2006
Is The A310 A Bad Plane For AR Or Just In General posted Tue Jan 3 2006 02:13:30 by GusNYC
Who Are The CEO's For These Airlines posted Mon Oct 31 2005 06:02:09 by HAMAD
When Is The Launch Date For Primaris Airlines? posted Tue Aug 9 2005 03:37:53 by ACAfan
"Airline" The TV Show. Bad PR For WN? posted Tue Jan 18 2005 02:40:05 by Ual747
Real Truth For The 717 And 737? posted Thu Jul 29 2004 05:37:56 by Sllevin
China Airlines And The Drive For Safety posted Wed Jun 9 2004 23:33:05 by Singapore_Air
For Fans Of The Original National Airlines.... posted Wed Sep 17 2003 05:46:39 by MxCtrlr