Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No United States-Mexico Pre-clearance?  
User currently offlineaviacsa55 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7749 times:

Since the United States has pre-clearance in Canada, which Air Canada and WestJet flies to some national and small international airports in the U.S. and heads to regional/domestic concourses or terminals, how come the United States doesn't have pre-clearance in Mexico? Different region? Too dangerous? Any answers or questions?

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUALFAson From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 733 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7697 times:

My non-insider guess is twofold:

1) For a lot of cities in the U.S. upper Midwest and East Coast, a couple of flights a day to YYZ and/or YUL might be all the international service they can support, so it doesn't make sense for these airports to have to build customs and immigration facilities, have them staffed, etc. I'm not sure there's the same number of small markets in the U.S. Southwest that are clamoring for a couple of daily flights to...MEX? SJD?

2) Politics and immigration policy. The U.S./Canada relationship is very different from the U.S./Mexico relationship, especially when it comes to issues of immigration. I don't think the U.S. is really looking to make it easier for Mexicans to travel to the U.S. by air (or any other method).



"We hope you've enjoyed flying with us as much as we've enjoyed taking you for a ride."
User currently offlinejpyvr From Canada, joined Jan 2000, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7690 times:

I don't know for sure, but I might guess that the security situation in Canada and in Mexico are very different. As far as I know, there is also US pre-clearance in a few other non-Canadian airports, like Nassau and Shannon. I stand to be correct on that though.

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7680 times:

Quoting aviacsa55 (Thread starter):
Since the United States has pre-clearance in Canada, which Air Canada and WestJet flies to some national and small international airports in the U.S. and heads to regional/domestic concourses or terminals, how come the United States doesn't have pre-clearance in Mexico? Different region? Too dangerous? Any answers or questions?

I doubt the Mexican government would be as cooperative as Canada in permitting U.S. government employees to work at Mexican airports. Would also require major changes to the airports to segregate U.S.-destined passengers. Who would pay for that? There's certainly no incentive for the Mexican airports to do so.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7666 times:

Quoting jpyvr (Reply 2):
As far as I know, there is also US pre-clearance in a few other non-Canadian airports, like Nassau and Shannon. I stand to be correct on that though.

Shannon, Dublin, Bermuda, Nassau, Freeport and Aruba.


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16307 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7623 times:

The reasons are well covered by the above explanations. Moreover, I don't see the situation changing until the violence in Mexico disappears. This will take a generation at least. Any US customs employees employed at Mexican airports would likely be open targets for blackmailing and kidnapping in the current climate.

Tne security checks on US-bound flights from Mexico is already high! You have your usual security to get to the gate area followed by a further vigorous bag check at the gate during boarding. A huge hassle but likely necessary.

Until Mexico can reduce the violence and corruption in their society, I think the US should notch up security. If the violence gets worse, the US should consider the cessation of flights between the 2 countries. Mexico is in the midst of a civil war -- the US hardly needs this on its border.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7607 times:

I thought CUN had pre-clearence

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7757 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7574 times:

Quoting aviacsa55 (Thread starter):
Too dangerous

That would be my biggest guess. Despite Mexico's good relationship with the USA, the fact that there are prominent border issues is probably why we have no preclearance with mexican airports. Just my idea, though.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7545 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 6):
I thought CUN had pre-clearence

Unfortunately not.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16885 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7443 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 6):
I thought CUN had pre-clearence

Not to get too deep into a off topic political discussion but the reason why there is no US pre-clearance in Mexico has very much to do with the total lack of cooperation between US and Mexican law enforcement which is necessary to make a pre-clearance operation work. The roots of this distrust goes back to a tragic incident involving a US DEA Special Agent named "Kiki" Camarena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Camarena_%28DEA_Agent%29

http://www.camarenafoundation.org/

The United States does not have a relationship of trust with Mexico in terms of cooperative Law enforcement, nor does Mexico trust the US. Mexico is especially wary given the methods the US Government used after the Agent Camarena incident in which many Mexicans feel their sovereignty was violated by the US.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineWROORD From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 958 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7437 times:

Quoting jpyvr (Reply 2):
I don't know for sure, but I might guess that the security situation in Canada and in Mexico are very different. As far as I know, there is also US pre-clearance in a few other non-Canadian airports, like Nassau and Shannon. I stand to be correct on that though

That is correct. SNN has pre--clearance due to the old biletaral agreement that all US bound flights from Ireland had to stop there It was easier to screen all passangers there before they continued to US. Not sure what was behind pre-clearing passangers in Nassau.
By the same token not all Canadian cities have pre-clearance. UA flies from ORD to London, Ontario and I do not think they have pre-clearance as well as the newely announced flights on UA to Thunder Bay and AA to Kitchner/Waterloo.

I think in general there are more flights from various points in Mexico to Us than Canada to US so it would be more difficult to deploy US officers in all those airports. I am not even going to go on the political side of this issue.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7306 times:

Quoting WROORD (Reply 10):
By the same token not all Canadian cities have pre-clearance. UA flies from ORD to London, Ontario and I do not think they have pre-clearance as well as the newely announced flights on UA to Thunder Bay and AA to Kitchner/Waterloo.

There are more Canadian airports with transborder service that lack pre-clearance than the 8 major airports that have it (YVR/YYC/YEG/YWG/YYZ/YOW/YUL/YHZ).

Those that don't have pre-clearance:

Victoria (YYJ)
Kelowna (YLW)
Saskatoon (YQR)
Regina (YQR)
Thunder Bay (YQT) (recently announced UA Express service YQT-ORD)
Kitchener/Waterloo (YKF)
London (YXU)
Toronto City Centre (YTZ)
Quebec City (YQB)
Moncton (YQM)
St. John's (YYT)


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7265 times:

Abu Dhabi is one of the next countries likely to get preclearance. It all has to do with negotiating with the host country. Allowing in American Security officers carrying weapons is something that not every country is going to agree with.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7380 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7214 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
There's certainly no incentive for the Mexican airports to do so.

Why not, it benefits the host nation as well, in Nassau we have opened a new US departure terminal, the second time in about 20 years.
In part the impetus years ago had to do with making it easier for American tourist to return home, in those days they did not even need passports, 9/11 changed that.
Benefit to the Bahamas was/is that locals do not need visa's to travel to the USA, a recent police record is required, and all US departures arrive at domestic terminals so we avoid the long immigration lines.

As for security, once past security you are regarded as being on American soil, local police officers will arrest and detain at USA direction. Our court system does have some joint jurisdiction with the USA on punishment of individuals arrested within the terminal, caveat being that if the USA does not want to share punishment, they can simply let the individual fly and arrest them on arrival in the USA. We do have to meet any USA requirement for facility security but I think for all citizens and the million or so pax who travel to the USA its a benefit that's worth it.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8428 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7216 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Its also a matter of culture, most places with pre-clearance speak English and do not take it s an insmult that US Border Officials are at their airports. Mexico would never consider it a positve thing, Mexico is a country with no foreign oil operations either all oil drilling is through Pemex.

User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6937 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 5):
This will take a generation at least. Any US customs employees employed at Mexican airports would likely be open targets for blackmailing and kidnapping in the current climate.

Exactly right. You would have to pay these employees more just to live in Mexico, and that in itself would make them targets.

My uncle worked in Ontario for a few years in this capacity in the 70s between stints at LAX. You couldn't pay him enough to do the same thing in Mexico.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3873 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6850 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):

I doubt the Mexican government would be as cooperative as Canada in permitting U.S. government employees to work at Mexican airports

As others have mentioned, there's also the considerable security risk to U.S. officials working in Mexico because of the prevalence and reach of the cartels.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6600 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 18):
As others have mentioned, there's also the considerable security risk to U.S. officials working in Mexico because of the prevalence and reach of the cartels.

You might also expect that those who chose the assignment might be Mexican, but if they have family there, it puts them at risk of extortion.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7757 posts, RR: 18
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6446 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 16):
As others have mentioned, there's also the considerable security risk to U.S. officials working in Mexico because of the prevalence and reach of the cartels.

Well that, and of course Canada is America's tophat.

  

I think that the unique partnership between the US and Canada really allows this kind of pre-clearance to happen. We don't have that with Mexico.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6358 posts, RR: 31
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6421 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This issue of Pre-Clearance has been brought up a few times. You could argue that the main obstacle is our Constitution. In article 19 or 22, I don´t really remember which, it states that the monopoly of all law enforcement policies has to be done through our DA figure.

What this means in reality is that no foreign national under foreign powers or authority can uphold or enforce the law within Mexico´s territory. No matter whose law.

Exceptions of course exist for embassies and such. Secret Service agents when some US dignitary is here, etc.

However, nowadays this can be circumvented by some treaty allowing ICE to perform their functions within the country.

But due to the current political climate, few politicias will try to change this as they perceive that pursuing such treaty will threaten Mexican sovereignity and make them loose constituents. An anachronistic view, in my opinion.

The truth is, pre-clearance is good for business both ways and I am sure we will see it in the future. Probably first in MEX, GDL and MTY.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 5):
You have your usual security to get to the gate area followed by a further vigorous bag check at the gate during boarding. A huge hassle but likely necessary.

When / where has this occured to you? I fly regularly to the US from MTY and I´ve had that happen to me maybe one time in many years. Maybe they single you out everytime for some reason.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 5):
the US should consider the cessation of flights between the 2 countries. Mexico is in the midst of a civil war -- the US hardly needs this on its border.


Cessation of flights? Civil war? Really? You need to watch less Fox news and similar outlets.


User currently offlineFF22DXB From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2008, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6232 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 19):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 5):
the US should consider the cessation of flights between the 2 countries. Mexico is in the midst of a civil war -- the US hardly needs this on its border.



Cessation of flights? Civil war? Really? You need to watch less Fox news and similar outlets.

  


User currently offlineusdcaguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 978 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6192 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 18):
Well that, and of course Canada is America's tophat.

As you are likely aware, Americans tend to think exactly in this manner, as do many American carriers, who continue to regard flights and service to Canada as "domestic". That couldn't be farther from the truth; Canada's economy has zoomed past ours, they have found ways to provide for their people as they should, and they don't get involved in onerous wars halfway around the world. The majority of Canada may speak English as most do in the States, but many Canadians, especially those in the East and on the Pacific, are worlds ahead of the US in terms of mentality and attitude. So no, they are not our top hat and have nothing to do with us.

More on topic, I wonder if the US should allow the Mexican government to open pre-clearance facilities in the States. It would be a great, easy way to get to Mexico more quickly and would allow travelers originating in the US to connect more easily to domestic flights within Mexico. That may be a way to built some trust initially. The US could then open facilities in Mexico once they were physically available, as long as security requirements were met. I'm sure more than a handful of border agents would love the opportunity to work south of the border if the compensation were good enough; I'm sure they already make more than many in Mexico.


User currently offlineORDBOSEWR From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 449 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6078 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11):
There are more Canadian airports with transborder service that lack pre-clearance than the 8 major airports that have it (YVR/YYC/YEG/YWG/YYZ/YOW/YUL/YHZ).

Sorry, but Winnipeg is not a 'major' airport (sorry winnipeg, you may be big for manitoba, but not by flight volume). I haven't looked recently, but back when I was going there it has like 5-8 flights a day to the US (last I checked it was like 4 to MSP and 2-4 to ORDDEN), plus a few sun destinations not daily. I used to fly it every week from ORD and MSP. I became 'friends' with the same US border agents as they rotate in and out on a scheduled basis.


User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2656 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5963 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 19):
The truth is, pre-clearance is good for business both ways and I am sure we will see it in the future. Probably first in MEX, GDL and MTY.

I'd expect CUN to get U.S. pre-clearance before any other major Mexican airport.

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 21):
More on topic, I wonder if the US should allow the Mexican government to open pre-clearance facilities in the States

Might mean shuffling gates for Mexico-bound flights but a Mexican pre-clearance probably will be good for U.S. airports like IAH and LAX, maybe DFW too.

In 1990 the U.S. offered PTY pre-clearnce, but the Panamanian government at that time found it not compatible with our sovereignty.



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16307 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5948 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 9):
in which many Mexicans feel their sovereignty was violated by the US.

How ironic, given how many millions of Mexicans have flooded illegally into the US.

Quoting WROORD (Reply 10):
SNN has pre--clearance due to the old biletaral agreement that all US bound flights from Ireland had to stop there It was easier to screen all passangers there before they continued to US.

Makes you wonder why the SNN pre-clearance has not been shut down then.

Quoting WROORD (Reply 10):
By the same token not all Canadian cities have pre-clearance. UA flies from ORD to London, Ontario and I do not think they have pre-clearance as well as the newely announced flights on UA to Thunder Bay and AA to Kitchner/Waterloo.

Apparently, a minimum # of passengers are needed to enable pre-clearance. I've read 400k/pa. YTZ is likely next on the list (if ever) and already handles more TB traffic than YHZ, YWG.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 12):
Abu Dhabi is one of the next countries likely to get preclearance.

Why? How does this possibly benefit the US? Not to mention the cost of setting up such pre-clearance.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 19):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 5):
You have your usual security to get to the gate area followed by a further vigorous bag check at the gate during boarding. A huge hassle but likely necessary.

When / where has this occured to you? I fly regularly to the US from MTY and I´ve had that happen to me maybe one time in many years. Maybe they single you out everytime for some reason.

It's happened on all flights I've bee on from MTY to the US, and all other US-bound flights boarding near my flight. Perhaps this is US carriers only.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 19):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 5):
the US should consider the cessation of flights between the 2 countries. Mexico is in the midst of a civil war -- the US hardly needs this on its border.


Cessation of flights? Civil war? Really? You need to watch less Fox news and similar outlets.

Yes, a civil war. 50K dead since Calderon began his crackdown. Sounds like a civil war to me. Been to Juarez lately? If not, why not? Perhaps you need to start watching SOME news, whether FOX or really anything.

Quoting ORDBOSEWR (Reply 22):
Sorry, but Winnipeg is not a 'major' airport

Agreed. YWG has had TB flights for decades and somehow got PC approved years ago.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7619 posts, RR: 17
Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6038 times:

Quoting jpyvr (Reply 2):
As far as I know, there is also US pre-clearance in a few other non-Canadian airports, like Nassau and Shannon.

Back in the early 1990s there was a short period when there was pre-clearence in LON. I certainly remember one BA LHR-JFK flight where I pre-cleared at LHR T4 in a facility set up to the left side of and immediately after the security check. I think a similar facility was also set up at LGW.

None of this lasted long. My recollection is that it was terminated because of the high cost living / accommodation for the pre-clearence staff in the Heathrow area. But if this is correct why was LGW pre-clearence closed? Perhaps it was regarded as anti-competitive to give pre-clearence to passengers travelling from LGW but not those travelling from LHR.


User currently offlinevinniewinnie From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 794 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5951 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 25):
Back in the early 1990s there was a short period when there was pre-clearence in LON. I certainly remember one BA LHR-JFK flight where I pre-cleared at LHR T4 in a facility set up to the left side of and immediately after the security check. I think a similar facility was also set up at LGW.

None of this lasted long. My recollection is that it was terminated because of the high cost living / accommodation for the pre-clearence staff in the Heathrow area. But if this is correct why was LGW pre-clearence closed? Perhaps it was regarded as anti-competitive to give pre-clearence to passengers travelling from LGW but not those travelling from LHR.

Still wondering why it hasn't been re-instated. Given the amount of flights to/from London to the US, I'm sure that some pre-clearance booths could be installed at Heathrow. Given the amount of flights BA operates, one could imagine having those at T5.

BA roughly operates 37 flights a day to the US. that is around 2.7 million people a year (based on an average of 200 pax per passenger). Imagine 20 TSA agent at total cost of $90k each (Cost includes compensation package), that is only $0.60 per passenger! Peanuts really! Even a 100 TSA employees would only cost $3.3 per pax!

Correct me if I'm wrong though!


User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13260 posts, RR: 100
Reply 27, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5741 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This has deteriorated into imagined slights. Let's not go there. Pre-clearance is a privilege that really helps business on both sides. I personally would like to see more, but it has to be done within the legal guidelines of *both* nations.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 7):
Despite Mexico's good relationship with the USA, the fact that there are prominent border issues is probably why we have no preclearance with mexican airports.

I suspect that is the root cause. The Mexico politicians want a more open boarder. Pre-clearance is at US dictated rules for entry to the USA and Mexican rules for entry to Mexico (if US airports may pre-clear, a good idea IMHO).

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 12):
Abu Dhabi is one of the next countries likely to get preclearance. It all has to do with negotiating with the host country. Allowing in American Security officers carrying weapons is something that not every country is going to agree with.

huh? This is the first I've heard of that. A link please.

Note: I'm all for expanding pre-clearance. But where would EY fly that would justify the process? For that length of flight, one will only be flying to the larger international airports due to the need for connections to fill the flight and O&D demand.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 19):
The truth is, pre-clearance is good for business both ways and I am sure we will see it in the future. Probably first in MEX, GDL and MTY.

I hope so.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineAAtakeMeAway From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5518 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 27):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 12):
Abu Dhabi is one of the next countries likely to get preclearance. It all has to do with negotiating with the host country. Allowing in American Security officers carrying weapons is something that not every country is going to agree with.

huh? This is the first I've heard of that. A link please.

Note: I'm all for expanding pre-clearance. But where would EY fly that would justify the process? For that length of flight, one will only be flying to the larger international airports due to the need for connections to fill the flight and O&D demand.

I had read about this too, here's an article where it's mentioned:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/wo...head-at-foreign-airports.html?_r=1


User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5404 times:

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 23):
I'd expect CUN to get U.S. pre-clearance before any other major Mexican airport.

I agree 200%!

CUN seems to have so much of the one-off service or Saturdays only to so many smaller airports it would seem like CUN would be cost effective for US CBP if something could be worked out.



“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
User currently offline9w748capt From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 600 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5378 times:

How would preclearance work at AUH since the vast majority of US-bound traffic from AUH would be connecting? If you're flying from, say, BOM to ORD via AUH, would you claim your bags at AUH, lug them through immigration and customs, then board your ORD flight? What a pain in the butt - I'd rather just claim them in the US and go through immigration/customs here.

User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 31, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 5276 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Lately, Mexico's (unfortunately) security of it's visitors is gaining such a high risk, that many parts of it are "not-recommended" for travel these days. Even Puerta Vallarta is on that listing and is unfortunate. U.S. Military members are actually restricted from visiting much of the country due to all of this unrest. I believe IMHO that is a major factor in why there isn't any "pre-clearance" allowed.

Hopefully someday soon this all can get cleared up for that country as a lot of U.S. citizens enjoy visiting thier land.


User currently offlineMarcus From Mexico, joined Apr 2001, 1801 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 5056 times:

As mentioned before, the Constitution states that only agents of the Mexican government can enforce the law on Mexican soil....so unless the Constitution changes so we can have US CBP agents in Mexico (yeah right!), that will not happen.


Kids!....we are going to the happiest place on earth...TIJUANA! signed: Krusty the Clown
User currently offlinephllax From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 441 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 5012 times:

There's also a facility under construction at Punta Cana that was due to open in 2009.

User currently offlineN312RM From Cayman Islands, joined Mar 2012, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 4959 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The US does not unilaterally determine which countries get Customs/Immigration pre-clearance. Countries desirous of having pre-clearance must first request this from the US. I understand that in the countries where it exists, the US the personnel cost, and the host country bears the other operational costs.

User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13260 posts, RR: 100
Reply 35, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 4944 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AAtakeMeAway (Reply 28):
I had read about this too, here's an article where it's mentioned:

Wow! Thank you for the link. After reading the reasoning (solve TSA issues prior to takeoff) it makes far more sense.

So when will DXB do this.  
Quoting 135mech (Reply 31):
Even Puerta Vallarta is on that listing and is unfortunate.

That is very sad. I very much enjoyed a pair of trips to Puerta Vallarta prior to all these issues. Beautiful region (never really went into the city, which is counter to my normal tourism). I hope that changes. But how?

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7757 posts, RR: 18
Reply 36, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 4900 times:

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 21):

That sir was a joke.

Quoting N312RM (Reply 34):
The US does not unilaterally determine which countries get Customs/Immigration pre-clearance. Countries desirous of having pre-clearance must first request this from the US. I understand that in the countries where it exists, the US the personnel cost, and the host country bears the other operational costs.

   exactly. I think Mexico likes how the system works currently.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2099 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 4905 times:

Obviously the biggest reason is different migration. However, Canada has a population of 35 million, smaller than the population of California, a large majority of which live near the U.S. border. Mexico has a population of 113 million spread around a much larger area. Pre-clearance in Mexico would take dozens of stations, many of which would be far from the USA and it is unclear if those airports would be willing to pay for them.

User currently offlineLucky727 From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 602 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4867 times:

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 21):
As you are likely aware, Americans tend to think exactly in this manner, as do many American carriers, who continue to regard flights and service to Canada as "domestic". That couldn't be farther from the truth; Canada's economy has zoomed past ours, they have found ways to provide for their people as they should, and they don't get involved in onerous wars halfway around the world. The majority of Canada may speak English as most do in the States, but many Canadians, especially those in the East and on the Pacific, are worlds ahead of the US in terms of mentality and attitude. So no, they are not our top hat and have nothing to do with us.

*Finally*, an ounce of respect from south of the border, from someone who actually *knows* something about us. Welcome to my RU list  

L727



··· [·] oooooooo [·] oooo oo ooooo [·] ooooooooooooooooooo [·]
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4069 posts, RR: 2
Reply 39, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4010 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 9w748capt (Reply 30):
How would preclearance work at AUH since the vast majority of US-bound traffic from AUH would be connecting?

About as well as connecting from Europe or Asia to the US through YYZ or YVR respectively, I imagine. Of all the ports of entry I have used in the US, I can't think of a single one I'd rather use instead of YYZ. Shorter lines, less hurried agents, faster processing, and you no longer need to pick up your luggage to clear customs (although I imagine CBP is using Canada pre-clearance posts as a test bed).

To boot, since I sit upfront, I get to use AC's lounge after pre-clearance, and Maple Leaf beats just about any United Sky Admiral Club you can think of.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 40, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3550 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 37):
However, Canada has a population of 35 million, smaller than the population of California, a large majority of which live near the U.S. border. Mexico has a population of 113 million spread around a much larger area.

But how many of Mexico's 113 million can afford to travel internationally by air? There must be significantly more airline capacity and traffic between the U.S. and Canada than between the U.S. and Mexico. For example, how many U.S.-Mexico routes have over 70 daily nonstops like Toronto-New York (all airports combined)?

Also, I don't see any connection between pre-clearance and the fact that a high percentage of Canada's population lives fairly close to the U.S. border. If YYZ or YVR were 1000 miles from the border the same rationale for pre-clearance would still exist. YEG has had pre-clearance for years and it's over 300 miles from the border. YHZ also isn't very close to the border.

The primary reason for pre-clearance is to facilitate connections at U.S. hub airports and to permit direct service beween Canada and smaller U.S. cities that lack full inspection facilities.


User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6358 posts, RR: 31
Reply 41, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3509 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 40):
But how many of Mexico's 113 million can afford to travel internationally by air?

It´s not a matter of who can afford it. It´s more who wants to. The number is around 5% to 8%. Mexicans just don´t travel abroad.

[Edited 2012-07-21 18:10:48]

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...
Why No US – Mexico Border Cities N/S Air Service? posted Thu Jun 21 2012 19:06:06 by point2point
Intl Markets No Longer Served By Pre-Merger United posted Thu Nov 17 2011 08:53:32 by Sulley
Why No Complete Footage Of United 232? posted Thu Sep 8 2011 07:05:30 by 727LOVER
Why No PTV's In United Airlines B747 Y Cabin? posted Sun Feb 14 2010 10:47:13 by UALORD
Pre 911 Why No U.S Domestic Security Checks? posted Tue Feb 12 2008 17:06:08 by Baexecutive
Why No LCC To / In Mexico? posted Mon Mar 7 2005 19:18:57 by Airevents
Why No A380 Orders From The States? posted Sat Nov 6 2004 13:02:04 by BMI701EGCC
United Airlines: Why No SFO-MNL? posted Thu Feb 5 2004 01:36:14 by As739x
United, US Airways, Northwest...Why No A318? posted Thu May 30 2002 19:53:39 by 727LOVER
Why No First Suite On United International 767's? posted Wed Jan 10 2001 19:34:15 by Surf