Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aer Lingus U.S. Terminal Moves?  
User currently offlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2928 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4314 times:

From Novermber of this year, all Aer Lingus arrivals into the United States will be pre-cleared of US Customs and Border Protection at Shannon and Dublin airports, eliminating the need for them to arrive at international terminals at Logan, Kennedy, O'Hare and Orlando airports. From a passenger convenience perspective, it would be more logical for EI to consolidate their traffic with that of a partner (i.e. United Airlines and/or JetBlue Airways) and would not require passengers to re-clear security after transfering to a domestic terminal.

So what are the most likely switches for EI at BOS, JFK, ORD and MCO (if any)? Obviously it would depend on gate space etc.

My guesses are:
ORD: from International Terminal 5 to T1 (with UA)
BOS: from Terminal E to Terminal C (with B6-and to a lesser extent UA)
JFK: from Terminal 4 to Terminal 5 (with B6, although B6 is the sole occupant of T5 so perhaps unlikely?)
MCO: no change - remain at Terminal 1


Shannon-Chicago
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejoepatroniyx From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4290 times:

Rumor has it in BOS that B6 has been checking the Gates in Term C to see if an Airbus 330 can fit at certain ones without disrupting current ops. .

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25718 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4247 times:

Frankly I doubt they will move, especially in a place like ORD. Lufthansa is the only longhaul Star partner colocated with United. Also at JFK, I don't believe the B6 facility can handle widebodies.

Lastly, one thing to remember, being precleared, one still must have the ability to rescreen passengers upon arrival in the US if so requested. (happens once or twice a month here at LAX) Moving away and into a wholly domestic facility could create logistical and handling issues in the event such process is required. So such a move would require CBP approval and contingency plan in place with them and the airport authority.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8419 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4175 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting joepatroniyx (Reply 1):
Rumor has it in BOS that B6 has been checking the Gates in Term C to see if an Airbus 330 can fit at certain ones without disrupting current ops.

There are A330 gates in Terminal C in Boston since TWA used to fly 747's to LHR from Terminal C( I flew one in 1982). TWA also operated L-1011's to CDG and 747SP to Rome( in 1982 they did). DElta also operated L-1011 and 767 from TC for years. Aer Lingus should have no problem with an A330 in TC.


User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2887 posts, RR: 31
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4169 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
ne thing to remember, being precleared, one still must have the ability to rescreen passengers upon arrival in the US if so requested. (happens once or twice a month here at LAX) Moving away and into a wholly domestic facility could create logistical and handling issues in the event such process is required. So such a move would require CBP approval and contingency plan in place with them and the airport authority.

Such events are rare enough where moving to domestic terminals (to provide much easier transfers) is well worth it. AC uses "domestic" areas all the time - ORD T2, SFO T3, etc.



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineEagleboy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4123 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How would any such move impact on the outbound flight?
Would it be no problem to have 'international' pax checking in a departing from a 'domestic' terminal.
Are the terms 'domestic' and 'international' only relevant to arrivng pax from a CBP point of view?


User currently offlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2928 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4045 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Frankly I doubt they will move, especially in a place like ORD. Lufthansa is the only longhaul Star partner colocated with United.

I know ORD very well and I'd say a move is likely. IB are in T3 with AA and you're forgetting that NK is at T1 with UA along with LH. In saying that however, the interational terminal at ORD also takes domestic flights in USA3000 Airlines' case.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Lastly, one thing to remember, being precleared, one still must have the ability to rescreen passengers upon arrival in the US if so requested. (happens once or twice a month here at LAX) Moving away and into a wholly domestic facility could create logistical and handling issues in the event such process is required.

AC doesn't seem to have problems and they're in a wholly domestic terminal (T2) at ORD. Likewise for AA (T3) and UA (T1) canadian arrivals (*from airports with CBP preclearance, obviously).

Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 5):
Are the terms 'domestic' and 'international' only relevant to arrivng pax from a CBP point of view?

Yes. Departing international flights can depart from any terminal. It's just the arriving international flights that have to land at a terminal where they can clear CBP. In ORD's case T5 is the only such terminal. In the case I've mentioned above, Iberia lands at T5 from Madrid, but is then towed over to T3 (due to its partnership with AA who's resident in that terminal). Lufthansa flights from Frankfurt am Main, Munich and Dusseldorf follow the same procedure but depart from T1. Also all AA and UA international arrivals have to land at T5 but are then towed back to their respective terminals.



Shannon-Chicago
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6791 posts, RR: 32
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3942 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 3):
There are A330 gates in Terminal C in Boston since TWA used to fly 747's to LHR from Terminal C( I flew one in 1982). TWA also operated L-1011's to CDG and 747SP to Rome( in 1982 they did). DElta also operated L-1011 and 767 from TC for years. Aer Lingus should have no problem with an A330 in TC.

Except that the gates in Terminal C at BOS have almost undoubtedly been reconfigured since 1982 and the TWA 747 may have blocked adjacent gates when operating from Terminal C. The 767 and L1011 have significantly narrower wingspans than the A330, but I believe that SN, SR, and AF did operate from the Delta gates at one time or another (though they may have blocked adjacent gates). Since EI has two aircraft on the ground in BOS several days a week, the big question is if the airlines in Terminal C can afford to have three or four gates blocked for several hours in the afternoon.

Quoting AmricanShamrok (Thread starter):
JFK: from Terminal 4 to Terminal 5

Since T-5 was likely designed exclusively for narrowbodies, they'd again run into the issue of blocking adjacent gates, though there is certainly enough room on the ramp for larger aircraft.


User currently offlinejcarv From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 3 days ago) and read 3779 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 7):
Except that the gates in Terminal C at BOS have almost undoubtedly been reconfigured since 1982 and the TWA 747 may have blocked adjacent gates when operating from Terminal C. The 767 and L1011 have significantly narrower wingspans than the A330, but I believe that SN, SR, and AF did operate from the Delta gates at one time or another (though they may have blocked adjacent gates). Since EI has two aircraft on the ground in BOS several days a week, the big question is if the airlines in Terminal C can afford to have three or four gates blocked for several hours in the afternoon

The gates have been reconfigured in the jetBlue pier. United has 2 widebody gates that I assume could fit an A330 with minimal changes since they fit B777. However, the talk was to keep EI at Terminal E and they would utilize Gates E3A/B or a reconfigured E2. Gates E2 & 3 have the ability to deplane domestic passengers via a second level exit right into the domestic baggage hall. But the baggare carousel there is in severe need of replacement. Time will tell. New jetbridges are being installed currently at E3A & B.


User currently offlinetonymctigue From Ireland, joined Feb 2006, 1947 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 3 days ago) and read 3743 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It would seem to me that if the maximum benefit is to be got from both the preclearance and the strategic partnerships with B6 and UA, relocating all ops to US domestic terminals is an obvious move.


Flown With EI,FR,RE,UA,CO,AA,WS,CX,QF,JQ: Airports SNN,GWY,ORK,DUB,NOC,LHR,STN,BOS,EWR,JFK,ORD,BOI,SEA,MCI,LHR,LYS,CDG,H
User currently offlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2928 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3703 times:

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 9):
It would seem to me that if the maximum benefit is to be got from both the preclearance and the strategic partnerships with B6 and UA, relocating all ops to US domestic terminals is an obvious move.

   We've seen DL, CO and, last year, US moving all their respective SNN-originating flights to their own domestic terminals/gates at their JFK, EWR and PHL hubs respectively to ease the burden on passengers to changeover and re-clear security



Shannon-Chicago
User currently offlineMcMax From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3560 times:

EI also announced this year they are going to rejoin an alliance, so I think any co-location with United or jetBlue would be premature, especially if EI goes back to oneworld, or joins Skyteam.


De minimis non curat lex tamen ego curao
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6791 posts, RR: 32
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3481 times:

Quoting jcarv (Reply 8):
However, the talk was to keep EI at Terminal E and they would utilize Gates E3A/B or a reconfigured E2. Gates E2 & 3 have the ability to deplane domestic passengers via a second level exit right into the domestic baggage hall. But the baggare carousel there is in severe need of replacement. Time will tell. New jetbridges are being installed currently at E3A & B.

This really does little to facilitate connections to UA or B6, though. And the last time I was through there, the Terminal E domestic baggage claim was a pretty dire space.

Since I don't think UA is going to be moving over to Terminal A, I think Terminal C is going to become an awfully crowded place.


User currently offlinejcarv From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3320 times:

I would bet money on UAL moving from Terminal C, whether to Terminal A or B. Massport wants UAL out and Terminal C to be all jetBlue (Piers B & C). Construction has begun for a combined security checkpoint. United has lost C12 & C14 with C21 on the way out.

User currently offlineburnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7553 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3237 times:

Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 5):
Would it be no problem to have 'international' pax checking in a departing from a 'domestic' terminal.

Keep in mind in the US we don't really have "domestic terminals" as international flights can depart from any gate, the only requirement is that they go to a gate that has customs facilities coming in.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Lastly, one thing to remember, being precleared, one still must have the ability to rescreen passengers upon arrival in the US if so requested

So if that was the case they just force them to park at a customs gate... Air Canada, Westjet, and any other airline that flies between the US and Canada (except for Cathay's YVR-JFK and PR's YVR-LAS) go into normal gates all the time that don't have customs. Especially a lot of Air Canada flights to smaller stations. For the longest time AC in Denver was at United B gates which doesn't have customs. UA's LHR flight parks at A and then is towed to B, much like DL's BOS-AMS goes into E and then is towed to A, (NW didn't have this problem since all their flights were at E anyway).



"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25718 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3122 times:

Quoting burnsie28 (Reply 14):
So if that was the case they just force them to park at a customs gate... Air Canada, Westjet, and any other airline that flies between the US and Canada (except for Cathay's YVR-JFK and PR's YVR-LAS) go into normal gates all the time that don't have customs. Especially a lot of Air Canada flights to smaller stations. For the longest time AC in Denver was at United B gates which doesn't have customs. UA's LHR flight parks at A and then is towed to B, much like DL's BOS-AMS goes into E and then is towed to A, (NW didn't have this problem since all their flights were at E anyway).

Airlines and airport operator are required to have an approved contingency plan. Overseas or Canada pre-screening is not absolute, and flights are subject to re-screening.

For instance at LAX the contingency plan is to either 1)use the FIS in the existing terminal where AC and WJ operate to or 2) remote park and bus into a CBP equipped terminal.
At another airport like, LGA plan its to seal off and segreaget a portion of the concourse gate area and await arrival of CBP.

Such second screenings occur here in LAX a few times per month, and airlines must be ready to comply and have plans, and their vendors available to handle.

This is the exact same reason driving why airlines cannot operate cross-border flights to airports without CBP around.
Might remember Alaska Airlines attempt to run YVR-SNA a few years back which was denied as CBP at the time had no means and no staffing to meet flights at SNA if required.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2207 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Lufthansa is the only longhaul Star partner colocated with United.

ANA is also included here at T3 at ORD



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently offlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2928 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3043 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 15):
This is the exact same reason driving why airlines cannot operate cross-border flights to airports without CBP around.

I think the "second screening" of flights is quite rare. After all, here at SNN you can fly to any airport in the United States regardless of whether it has CBP-equipped terminals and be perfectly legit. It was all part of the agreement between the Department of Transport here and the US Department of Transportation which allows full CBP preclearance at DUB and SNN.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 16):
ANA is also included here at T3 at ORD

T1 you mean?



Shannon-Chicago
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6791 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

Quoting AmricanShamrok (Reply 17):
After all, here at SNN you can fly to any airport in the United States regardless of whether it has CBP-equipped terminals and be perfectly legit.

That just isn't accurate. See LAXIntl's post above:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 15):
This is the exact same reason driving why airlines cannot operate cross-border flights to airports without CBP around.
Might remember Alaska Airlines attempt to run YVR-SNA a few years back which was denied as CBP at the time had no means and no staffing to meet flights at SNA if required.

An airport like MHT, for example, doesn't have a CBP-equipped terminal but it does have CBP availability elsewhere at the airport. The same is true for ALB, and this is why AC is able to operate regional service to both ALB and MHT.


User currently offlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2928 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 2 days ago) and read 2949 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 18):
That just isn't accurate. See LAXIntl's post above:

It's perfectly accurate. See below:

http://www.shannonairport.com/businesstobusiness/

Quoting Shannon Airport:
Shannon Airport is the first airport in the world, outside of the Americas, to offer Full US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) preclearance facilities to airlines travelling to the USA.

With this new facility your airline can land at any airport you choose in the USA.
Quoting Shannon Airport:

Airline Benefits:

Land at any airport and use domestic terminals on arrival, thus reducing your costs.

The fact that you can fly from SNN (and soon DUB) to ANY airport in the USA, even those without CBP, was agreed between the Irish and US governments. Private jets do it every day and commercial airlines have that right too. Maybe it's different with the US/Canada preclearance.

No granted, private aircraft that are precleared are limited to about 200 arrival airports in the USA in accordance with US Dept. of Agriculture rules regarding international garbage disposal. That list can be found here (you'll notice most of these airports are not-CBP equipped so this backs up my point that SNN-USA traffic does not have to land at a CBP point):

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/..._preclear.ctt/private_preclear.pdf

[Edited 2010-07-21 15:10:52]


Shannon-Chicago
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25718 posts, RR: 50
Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2912 times:

Quoting AmricanShamrok (Reply 19):

Do we want to talk about private, or commercial airline flying? One is an apple, other is an orange.
Each has a very varied clearance and airport usage process.

A private plane can operate to a much larger spectrum of US destination airports, not just on a pre-cleared basis but also post cleared basis. For example even on a post clear basis I can fly up in my friends plane into a host of California airports from Mexico (requiring full clearance as there is no pre-clearance in Mexico), that an airline could never do.

So please lets not mix the two different modes of transport. Bottom line is private preclearance and preclearance for commercial airliner is vastly different and have their own rules.

(oh p.s. - Also things keep in mind things happen at times that require full clearance for passenger flights - such as delays from origin airport and the preclearance is closed (happens in Caribbean and Canada as CBP is not 24hrs), or flight diverts or lands for some reason at a 3rd country airport while enroute.)



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinebaw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2028 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2898 times:

The JFK flights will go to T7 where United operates now...those gates can accommodate an A330 no problem. The other thing about T7 is that it has its own FIS facility, so if there is a need for full clearance, it can be done right there.

baw716



David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
User currently offlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2928 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2721 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 20):

Well if private passengers are allowed to land at any airport unconditionally without the possibility of another inspection, what makes it different for commercial aircraft? That point was just a small add-on to my larger point that was confirmed by Shannon Airport itself saying that airlines can land at any US airport from SNN.

Quoting baw716 (Reply 21):
The JFK flights will go to T7 where United operates now...those gates can accommodate an A330 no problem. The other thing about T7 is that it has its own FIS facility, so if there is a need for full clearance, it can be done right there.

EI doesn't codeshare with UA from JFK and UA doesn't provide much connecting opportunities anyway so colocating with B6 would be the main aim here.



Shannon-Chicago
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23148 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2656 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 12):
This really does little to facilitate connections to UA or B6, though. And the last time I was through there, the Terminal E domestic baggage claim was a pretty dire space.

It was/is, and isn't WN using it now? It has two belts, IIRC, but it isn't exactly spacious. A 330 worth of passengers with a couple of WN flights would not be much fun.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinezrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 3178 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2612 times:

Wasn't Logan's Terminal A built equipped with US customs facilities, even though it was never used. Or perhaps it was
Aft of the original design, but it never came to pass.



14 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2013
25 LAXintl : Its not any airport, nor is it unconditional, just much larger set of airports for private aircraft. But the way it works is either airports are desi
26 bestwestern : I believe that EI have a multi year contract with Terminal 4 in JFK, so they will be there until the contract expires.
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...
Aer Lingus ATR72! posted Sun Mar 7 2010 23:01:47 by kaitak
Aer Lingus To End All Its LGW-Europe Flights posted Wed Jan 27 2010 05:17:59 by Mozart
Aer Lingus Considering Rejoining Oneworld? posted Mon Dec 14 2009 11:40:20 by LX138
Aer Lingus 747 - Some Movie posted Sun Dec 13 2009 15:29:08 by Tonystan
Aer Lingus Performance At LGW posted Sat Nov 28 2009 11:10:21 by Delta777jet
Help Required Aer Lingus Plane Names posted Sat Nov 14 2009 01:53:19 by DC10BHX
CO Entry Into Star - Terminal Moves At EWR? posted Tue Oct 20 2009 08:34:40 by Mozart
Retracing My Aer Lingus Steps posted Wed Oct 14 2009 05:40:18 by EIJFK
Aer Lingus To Cut Jobs, Salaries posted Wed Oct 7 2009 10:45:20 by Force13
Aer Lingus Trans-Atlantic In 1960? posted Fri Sep 25 2009 22:03:25 by Tango-Bravo