Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
airbazar
Posts: 10431
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Sat Dec 12, 2020 11:19 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:
In the 80s, where does one go through immigration? In ANC or the final destination in the US?

Final destination. ANC was a major refueling stop rather than a connecting airport. Flights stopped, people got out into the terminal while the plane was refueled, then they continued on to their final destination.


Was it a sterile area? One could not just easily leave the airport, right?


Yes. See reply #40 above. Other U.S. airports had the same setup pre 9/11. Iberia run a full blown hub at MIA until 2004:
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xp ... story.html
The rule that every arriving passenger has to clear immigration was only imposed after 9/11.
 
TigerFlyer
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Mon Dec 14, 2020 6:15 pm

ALPA pointed out in its comments on the DOT action that this is a giant nothing burger.

Little more than a P.R. opportunity for ANC --

"As ALPA explained in the Puerto Rico proceeding, we believe that such relief is no longer necessary given the proliferation of Open Skies Agreements that are in now place with nearly every commercially significant country that provide the same transfer flexibility. Nonetheless, we understand Alaska’s and the Department’s desire to continue the express, if redundant, longstanding exemption relief in Alaska.

The NOAT makes clear under Condition (4) that the transfer authority “will not permit . . . cabotage operations.” ALPA wishes to emphasize on the record that the exemption authority here, particularly as relates to passengers, has no linkage to the so-called “Stevens Amendment” that allows transfer of “eligible cargo” by foreign carriers in limited instances that would otherwise constitute cabotage. Erroneous trade press reports have suggested that the NOAT would allow foreign carriers to establish hubs in Alaska for U.S.-Asia passengers, with various foreign carriers operating all legs of the journey. This is emphatically not the case; the Department did not authorize any passenger cabotage under this exemption, nor could it have done so under existing U.S. law."
 
masseybrown
Posts: 5649
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Mon Dec 14, 2020 6:46 pm

Good for ANC. The country never should have let the TSA shut down the transit traffic at US airports. Security is still possible without killing that traffic.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Mon Dec 14, 2020 6:53 pm

TigerFlyer wrote:
ALPA pointed out in its comments on the DOT action that this is a giant nothing burger.

Little more than a P.R. opportunity for ANC --

"As ALPA explained in the Puerto Rico proceeding, we believe that such relief is no longer necessary given the proliferation of Open Skies Agreements that are in now place with nearly every commercially significant country that provide the same transfer flexibility. Nonetheless, we understand Alaska’s and the Department’s desire to continue the express, if redundant, longstanding exemption relief in Alaska.

The NOAT makes clear under Condition (4) that the transfer authority “will not permit . . . cabotage operations.” ALPA wishes to emphasize on the record that the exemption authority here, particularly as relates to passengers, has no linkage to the so-called “Stevens Amendment” that allows transfer of “eligible cargo” by foreign carriers in limited instances that would otherwise constitute cabotage. Erroneous trade press reports have suggested that the NOAT would allow foreign carriers to establish hubs in Alaska for U.S.-Asia passengers, with various foreign carriers operating all legs of the journey. This is emphatically not the case; the Department did not authorize any passenger cabotage under this exemption, nor could it have done so under existing U.S. law."


They are missing the point. Nobody is proposing to "allow foreign carriers to establish hubs in Alaska for U.S.-Asia passengers, with various foreign carriers operating all legs of the journey"; the purpose of passenger transfer rights is to allow passengers to fly through a U.S. airport while en route to and from other countries.

ANC, for instance, could be a transfer point for anyone wanting to fly from Beijing to Mexico City - a flight too long for non-stop - and those passengers would not have to go through U.S, Customs and Immigration procedures - an option they would not have at any other U.S. airport. (that assumes anyone actually wants to fly from Beijing to Mexico City these days... but that is not the point).

Since other airports in the U.S.A. do not allow for Transit-without-Visa, ANC believes this gives them an advantage - albeit an advantage limited to a relatively small market - for airlines and passengers flying these routes.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
TigerFlyer
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Mon Dec 14, 2020 7:20 pm

alfa164 wrote:
They are missing the point. Nobody is proposing to "allow foreign carriers to establish hubs in Alaska for U.S.-Asia passengers, with various foreign carriers operating all legs of the journey"; the purpose of passenger transfer rights is to allow passengers to fly through a U.S. airport while en route to and from other countries.

ANC, for instance, could be a transfer point for anyone wanting to fly from Beijing to Mexico City - a flight too long for non-stop - and those passengers would not have to go through U.S, Customs and Immigration procedures - an option they would not have at any other U.S. airport.


I think their point was that the transfer flexibility Alaska seeks was already available to everyone under open skies, and that the additional exemption relief is redundant. I agree that the PEK-ANC-MEX transfer is a rare exception because China is not open skies; however, NRT-ANC-MEX, SIN-ANC-GRU, FRA-ANC-BOG have all be open for the type of passenger transfers as you describe for years. The exemption adds nothing new - except China passenger transfers (they already had cargo transfers going back to the 1990s). Since no Chinese passenger carriers serve ANC, or are likely to, this action is of no practical effect.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Mon Dec 14, 2020 7:50 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
[quote="Ziyulu"[b]]Do you think the US Government will really allow not going through immigration when transiting at a US airport?[/b] Almost all countries in the world require going through immigration at the first point of entry.


If your next destination is not in the US, then why not? Almost all countries in the world have a way of not corralling you into "immigrating" and then "emigrating", when you transit through an airport. Such a setup is typically called "international airport" and specifically "transit zone/sterile zone".
They could screen for security and correct paperwork for onward journey, of course. They will collect your fees (conveniently rolled into your airline ticket price in advance), take your money via duty free shops and food outlets, and let you continue on your merry way.


How come gateways like LAX, SFO, ORD, JFK, EWR, etc, are all big international airports and none of these offer airside transfers? Also, if you do offer visa free airside transfers, a country needs exit immigration control so passengers do not just wander out of the terminal.[/quote]

An isolated facility like Seattle's satellite concourses could work. The only way in or out is via the tram, and if the tram access is limited to Customs, nobody gets out except by passing through Customs or pulling the emergency exit. And it could be made such that the emergency exit is only thru Customs. It can be done. If there is political will.
 
formeraa
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:27 am

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:15 pm

I hope ANC didn't pay some "aviation" consulting firm a lot of money for this analysis. One thing is clear: most passengers prefer a nonstop flight. Most won't connect through ANC, if a competitively priced nonstop is available. Why add 2-3 hours to your trip> The mileage may be similar, but the flight time will be longer.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6427
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Mon Dec 14, 2020 9:10 pm

In a post Covid world I would love to see ANC have year round flights to Asia and Europe. Maybe just 3x weekly to each. To connect with whatever airline partners with AS.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Mon Dec 14, 2020 9:31 pm

The biggest opportunity here is for AS to set up a hub with Asian/Pacific airlines that connect a bunch of second tier cities on both sides of the pacific plus the aforementioned possibilities of MEX and YUL. The best sketch for a passenger hub is any asian city that can reach ANC with a 737MAX or 321LR/XLR and flow traffic on thin routes onward to cities like PDX, SMF, DEN, SLC, MSP, and Canadian cities that are reachable with a 737. it eliminates the double-connect issue but is there really that much demand from Minnie to Busan, for example?
 
32andBelow
Posts: 5641
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Tue Dec 15, 2020 4:22 am

formeraa wrote:
I hope ANC didn't pay some "aviation" consulting firm a lot of money for this analysis. One thing is clear: most passengers prefer a nonstop flight. Most won't connect through ANC, if a competitively priced nonstop is available. Why add 2-3 hours to your trip> The mileage may be similar, but the flight time will be longer.

Why not? People love connecting in Iceland. The service would make more sense with the new generation of narrow bodies that can fly longer legs.
 
CALMSP
Posts: 3673
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Tue Dec 15, 2020 4:28 am

formeraa wrote:
I hope ANC didn't pay some "aviation" consulting firm a lot of money for this analysis. One thing is clear: most passengers prefer a nonstop flight. Most won't connect through ANC, if a competitively priced nonstop is available. Why add 2-3 hours to your trip> The mileage may be similar, but the flight time will be longer.


you know they did, and probably big big bucks.
 
TigerFlyer
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Tue Dec 15, 2020 6:43 am

N717TW wrote:
The biggest opportunity here is for AS to set up a hub with Asian/Pacific airlines that connect a bunch of second tier cities on both sides of the pacific plus the aforementioned possibilities of MEX and YUL. The best sketch for a passenger hub is any asian city that can reach ANC with a 737MAX or 321LR/XLR and flow traffic on thin routes onward to cities like PDX, SMF, DEN, SLC, MSP, and Canadian cities that are reachable with a 737. it eliminates the double-connect issue but is there really that much demand from Minnie to Busan, for example?


AS and potential foreign partners could do that before the exemption was issued, and can continue do it now. Nothing new here.

You are correct that there is simply no demand for that type of service.
 
TigerFlyer
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Tue Dec 15, 2020 6:47 am

CALMSP wrote:
formeraa wrote:
I hope ANC didn't pay some "aviation" consulting firm a lot of money for this analysis. One thing is clear: most passengers prefer a nonstop flight. Most won't connect through ANC, if a competitively priced nonstop is available. Why add 2-3 hours to your trip> The mileage may be similar, but the flight time will be longer.


you know they did, and probably big big bucks.


Nah. It was a throw-away that they included with a routine renewal application for the longstanding cargo transfer exemption (which does have some utility). Pureto Rico got that relief for cargo, plus pax, last summer, so Alaska just threw pax in with their cargo renewal request. A freebie.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1210
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:34 am

What is ALPA ranting about?

I thought scissor hubs would be allowed. ANA from KIX, Haneda, and NRT to PDX, SEA, and YVR with passengers switching planes in ANC as needed.


Maybe they are saying KE from SEL and transferring to that ANA flight to PDX would not be allowed? Who was suggesting that?

Looks cargo actually has some rights on this last option though. (Via the Stephens Amendment)

LAX does a lot of this* anyways, so I guess it’s not a big deal.

* scissor hub for Qantas (with change of gauge), old AKL-LAX-LHR, and AF CDG-LAX-PPT


Are airlines in general allowed KE SEL-ANC then AC ANC-YVR? Is this the only real benefit to an Open Skies country?
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5673
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:36 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
2travel2know2 wrote:
Perhaps is time ANC Airport Marketing starts talking to NH, JL, KE, OZ, BR, CA et al about routing any future passenger service to Latin America via ANC.


LAX works fine, and actually has meaningful O&D plus services to Latin American destinations.

ANC spent more in lawyer fees to prepare the application than it will see in new passenger taxes from this. The cargo rationalization - you can carry more weight because you're not carrying fuel - means you don't get non-stops that generate non-stop premiums. ANC would be competing with every other one-stop route, with less frequency and carrier choice. Don't pick fights you can't win.

I feel like it's worded in such way only because of the pandemic underway?
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5673
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:43 am

TigerFlyer wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
They are missing the point. Nobody is proposing to "allow foreign carriers to establish hubs in Alaska for U.S.-Asia passengers, with various foreign carriers operating all legs of the journey"; the purpose of passenger transfer rights is to allow passengers to fly through a U.S. airport while en route to and from other countries.

ANC, for instance, could be a transfer point for anyone wanting to fly from Beijing to Mexico City - a flight too long for non-stop - and those passengers would not have to go through U.S, Customs and Immigration procedures - an option they would not have at any other U.S. airport.


I think their point was that the transfer flexibility Alaska seeks was already available to everyone under open skies, and that the additional exemption relief is redundant. I agree that the PEK-ANC-MEX transfer is a rare exception because China is not open skies; however, NRT-ANC-MEX, SIN-ANC-GRU, FRA-ANC-BOG have all be open for the type of passenger transfers as you describe for years. The exemption adds nothing new - except China passenger transfers (they already had cargo transfers going back to the 1990s). Since no Chinese passenger carriers serve ANC, or are likely to, this action is of no practical effect.

It have been some years that Alaska seeking direct connection to smaller Chinese cities, and have tried to experiment using charter flights, although rhose are mainly due to certain charter company using 767 for charter flight from China to US and didn't have enough range for nonstop
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
TigerFlyer
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:24 pm

ADent wrote:
What is ALPA ranting about?

I thought scissor hubs would be allowed. ANA from KIX, Haneda, and NRT to PDX, SEA, and YVR with passengers switching planes in ANC as needed.


Maybe they are saying KE from SEL and transferring to that ANA flight to PDX would not be allowed? Who was suggesting that?

Looks cargo actually has some rights on this last option though. (Via the Stephens Amendment)

LAX does a lot of this* anyways, so I guess it’s not a big deal.

* scissor hub for Qantas (with change of gauge), old AKL-LAX-LHR, and AF CDG-LAX-PPT


Are airlines in general allowed KE SEL-ANC then AC ANC-YVR? Is this the only real benefit to an Open Skies country?



I didn't read what ALPA was saying as a rant. They just seemed to be clarifying what is being misreported in the press, and apparently misunderstood on A-Net!

Its okay to transfer passengers between your own airplanes at what you call a "scissor hub" -- but you cannot transfer traffic between your aircraft and a foreign partner at a U.S. point that involve a domestic segment. Qantas was fined $125,000 not long ago for forgetting this basic rule and was carrying domestic passengers from JFK to LAX -- than transferring them to Air Tahiti Nui for travel to Tahiti. https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-New ... d-cabotage. That's cabotage.

The Stevens Amendment allowed an exception to this rule, and allowed certain cargo-only transfers at Alaska. So, for example, ANA could fly cargo NRT-ANC and be transferred onto LH ANC-ORD - if it was done under a UA waybill. What ALPA said in response to the mistaken press reports is that is not authorized here for passengers and DOT cannot do so unless Congress changes the law.
 
User avatar
lesfalls
Posts: 3548
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:36 pm

TigerFlyer wrote:
ADent wrote:
What is ALPA ranting about?

I thought scissor hubs would be allowed. ANA from KIX, Haneda, and NRT to PDX, SEA, and YVR with passengers switching planes in ANC as needed.


Maybe they are saying KE from SEL and transferring to that ANA flight to PDX would not be allowed? Who was suggesting that?

Looks cargo actually has some rights on this last option though. (Via the Stephens Amendment)

LAX does a lot of this* anyways, so I guess it’s not a big deal.

* scissor hub for Qantas (with change of gauge), old AKL-LAX-LHR, and AF CDG-LAX-PPT


Are airlines in general allowed KE SEL-ANC then AC ANC-YVR? Is this the only real benefit to an Open Skies country?



I didn't read what ALPA was saying as a rant. They just seemed to be clarifying what is being misreported in the press, and apparently misunderstood on A-Net!

Its okay to transfer passengers between your own airplanes at what you call a "scissor hub" -- but you cannot transfer traffic between your aircraft and a foreign partner at a U.S. point that involve a domestic segment. Qantas was fined $125,000 not long ago for forgetting this basic rule and was carrying domestic passengers from JFK to LAX -- than transferring them to Air Tahiti Nui for travel to Tahiti. https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-New ... d-cabotage. That's cabotage.

The Stevens Amendment allowed an exception to this rule, and allowed certain cargo-only transfers at Alaska. So, for example, ANA could fly cargo NRT-ANC and be transferred onto LH ANC-ORD - if it was done under a UA waybill. What ALPA said in response to the mistaken press reports is that is not authorized here for passengers and DOT cannot do so unless Congress changes the law.

So in reality nothing has changed then in the case for ANC?
Lufthansa: Einfach ein bisschen besser.
 
TigerFlyer
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:55 pm

lesfalls wrote:
TigerFlyer wrote:
ADent wrote:
What is ALPA ranting about?

I thought scissor hubs would be allowed. ANA from KIX, Haneda, and NRT to PDX, SEA, and YVR with passengers switching planes in ANC as needed.


Maybe they are saying KE from SEL and transferring to that ANA flight to PDX would not be allowed? Who was suggesting that?

Looks cargo actually has some rights on this last option though. (Via the Stephens Amendment)

LAX does a lot of this* anyways, so I guess it’s not a big deal.

* scissor hub for Qantas (with change of gauge), old AKL-LAX-LHR, and AF CDG-LAX-PPT


Are airlines in general allowed KE SEL-ANC then AC ANC-YVR? Is this the only real benefit to an Open Skies country?



I didn't read what ALPA was saying as a rant. They just seemed to be clarifying what is being misreported in the press, and apparently misunderstood on A-Net!

Its okay to transfer passengers between your own airplanes at what you call a "scissor hub" -- but you cannot transfer traffic between your aircraft and a foreign partner at a U.S. point that involve a domestic segment. Qantas was fined $125,000 not long ago for forgetting this basic rule and was carrying domestic passengers from JFK to LAX -- than transferring them to Air Tahiti Nui for travel to Tahiti. https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-New ... d-cabotage. That's cabotage.

The Stevens Amendment allowed an exception to this rule, and allowed certain cargo-only transfers at Alaska. So, for example, ANA could fly cargo NRT-ANC and be transferred onto LH ANC-ORD - if it was done under a UA waybill. What ALPA said in response to the mistaken press reports is that is not authorized here for passengers and DOT cannot do so unless Congress changes the law.

So in reality nothing has changed then in the case for ANC?


Exactly. Its a big nothing burger.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:31 pm

ahj2000 wrote:
Change of gauge is the most interesting term there imo. This is basically saying that CA or someone could set up a base in ANC, flying in 787s and such from Chinese destinations, and then giving them a single connection onto 32x/MAX type aircraft for direct service to secondary US destinations, eliminating the CHINA-PEK/PVG-LAX/SFO/JFK-USA route a lot of people have to do.
That would be an interesting concept.

The not so secret of Emirates are one stop connections and cheap labour.
Tokio has O+D, but Anchorage is a better and cheaper location.
From the US East coast to Asia a stop in Anchorage makes sense.

Small airports will depend on LAX or any hub with O+D. But for big cities I consider Anchorage possible.

Which plane has most cargo capacity/ passenger?

Pre Covid, how many daily passengers US to Asia one way?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: US DOT Grants ANC international passenger transfer rights

Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:46 pm

TigerFlyer wrote:
N717TW wrote:
The biggest opportunity here is for AS to set up a hub with Asian/Pacific airlines that connect a bunch of second tier cities on both sides of the pacific plus the aforementioned possibilities of MEX and YUL. The best sketch for a passenger hub is any asian city that can reach ANC with a 737MAX or 321LR/XLR and flow traffic on thin routes onward to cities like PDX, SMF, DEN, SLC, MSP, and Canadian cities that are reachable with a 737. it eliminates the double-connect issue but is there really that much demand from Minnie to Busan, for example?


AS and potential foreign partners could do that before the exemption was issued, and can continue do it now. Nothing new here.

You are correct that there is simply no demand for that type of service.


ANC could operate sorta like Iceland does on the Atlantic...but there is significantly less demand geographically spread across the pacific than the Atlantic. Most VFR traffic, which is what this sorta hub would attract, is much more concentrated in the US. That in turn is what allows so many wide bodies to operate LAX-ICN/PEK/TPE for example.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos