UK media reports says the US government is in talks with 5 European nations (the UK being one) to base US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers to process transatlantic travelers before they boarded US-bound aircraft.

In a statement, the UK’s Home Office, the government department that deals with law and order matters, said: "Pre-clearance, which is already in operation in Ireland, is a means of speeding the entry of passengers through US airports, Britain sees the advantages in allowing this procedure.”

Reports: US seeks more pre-clearance facilities in Europe
http://atwonline.com/security/report...e-pre-clearance-facilities-europe?

=

I'd love to see this. Great to arrive as a domestic passenger in the US. Not only convenient for travels but would help airlines in many cities that have restricted or remote international facilities (ie - ORD).

For those that might not remember - LHR did have US preclearance facility at one time (circa late 70s/early 80s)

LHR-DCA on an all-J 319!!!


Wouldn't that be something?

Quoting d l x (Reply 1): Wouldn't that be something?

Yes, although preclearance isn't the only thing stopping that service.

Personally, I'd be happier if CBP provided adequate staffing at its US facilities before they provide pre-clearance outside the US. Some of the wait times to get through customs in US airports are appalling...

Odd that the story doesn't name the five nations being looked at.

Quoting AVLAirlineFreq (Reply 4):

Germany, France, Netherlands, UK and can't remember the other one but most were not really interested bar the UK as they have to pay the costs.

At LHR they would probably require all US airlines in one terminal, can't see them building more than one facility but staffing will still be a problem weather its the US or UK based.

[Edited 2014-09-12 17:56:30]

If you look at volumes, the 5-biggest EU-US nations based on enplanments are:

UK
Germany
France
Netherlands
Spain

If you look at airport, top gateways are:
LHR
FRA
CDG
AMS
MUC
MAD
ZRH
FCO
MAN
...

(using 2013 stats)

Pre-clearance is such a terrible idea. I hope the UK doesn't implement it.

For the love of god, please no. AUH is already a mess, then multiply that to the size of LHR AMS CDG ? Yikes

Actually I think it would be quite useful and make arrival in US and beyond connections much easier.


In regards to AUH, its a mess as the airline allows it to be a mess.

Ireland works great, and even busier airports in Canada work fine.

The onus on clearing formalities is on the passenger. If they are slow, have problems and are late its not the airlines issue and airline should depart ontime.

From what I recall reading earlier this year, the US likes these overseas clearances as they improve security and immigration problems by stopping people before hand, not after the fact they land in America.

Quoting Jamie2k9 (Reply 5): At LHR they would probably require all US airlines in one terminal, can't see them building more than one facility but staffing will still be a problem weather its the US or UK based.

and what would BA and VS do?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3): Personally, I'd be happier if CBP provided adequate staffing at its US facilities before they provide pre-clearance outside the US. Some of the wait times to get through customs in US airports are appalling...

agree on this totally. MIA. JFK and other are a real mess

Quoting d l x (Reply 1): LHR-DCA on an all-J 319!!! Wouldn't that be something?

Quoting Polot (Reply 2): Yes, although preclearance isn't the only thing stopping that service.

I can imagine that having a trans-Atlantic load of fuel and taking off from practically downtown Washington DC on DCA's 7100 foot runway might prove more than a little dangerous.

How is LCY-JFK done?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3): Personally, I'd be happier if CBP provided adequate staffing at its US facilities before they provide pre-clearance outside the US. Some of the wait times to get through customs in US airports are appalling...

I couldn't agree more.... The wait time at ORD was awful, and that was in the US Citizen/Green Card line. The immigration line was about 20 times longer, out the main area and into the area where stairs from gates spill into spine... It was gruesome.

Well I am sorry I am a broken record, but really common sense these days seems to be a rare commodity!
Can't they just hire more immigration officials back home? You know how much that would cost to the American taxpayers? And that's money that could go to much needed airport upgrades, or again just simply hire customs officials at US airports.

Besides, with the level of technology we have today, the purpose pre-clearance was created for is now totally useless.
You have no-fly lists, biometric passports, and very sophisticated intelligence.
Abu Dhabi pre-clearance is financially maintained by the UAE government, obviously because it is a luxury that just helps EY sell more seats.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 11):

LCY-JFK stops at SNN on the way to JFK and passengers utilize SNN pre-clearance. JFK-LCY is nonstop.

Add me to the "Why not just fully staff what you're already bought and paid for on domestic soil" crowd!
EWR is a nightmare.
And even DFW, with its brilliant new arrivals hall (well, relatively new) can be a real headache when they have TWO EMPLOYEES stamping passports. They built something like twelve desks, and only staffed two when I arrived on KLM.
What's the point?
And expecting foreign countries to pay for this is two things: first, utterly ridiculous, and second, the REAL REASON BEHIND THIS "change"!!!!

Quoting VCEflyboy (Reply 13): Can't they just hire more immigration officials back home?

The benefit is not in lowering the wait clearing immigration in the US, but rather skipping it entirely. That way you can have onward domestic connections significantly easier. Instead of landing at IAH 3-4 hours before your connection departs, you can land 1-2 hours. That's in addition to allowing flights to airports that do not have significant customs service, such as DCA. Who knows -- maybe one of the countries is Portugal. I bet LIS-PVD would be a pretty good route, for instance.

Preclearance thus opens a lot of doors.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 11): How is LCY-JFK done?

Pre-clearance at SNN. I'd assume they may be considering LCY for a pre-clearance station.

Quoting d l x (Reply 16): The benefit is not in lowering the wait clearing immigration in the US, but rather skipping it entirely. That way you can have onward domestic connections significantly easier. Instead of landing at IAH 3-4 hours before your connection departs, you can land 1-2 hours. That's in addition to allowing flights to airports that do not have significant customs service, such as DCA. Who knows -- maybe one of the countries is Portugal. I bet LIS-PVD would be a pretty good route, for instance. Preclearance thus opens a lot of doors.

Eh, sort of. It slows down connections at the pre-clearance airport. Also, if you have seen the lines at YYZ - they rival any big US international gateway. Luckily, I have GE.

Pre-clearance costs the US more, as they pay for housing costs and a COLA for the CBP agents. Lots of CBP agents at places like YVR, YUL and YYZ have bought condos and/or houses using their allowances and suddenly have rental properties or sell them at the end of their tour.

The real reason the US government loves pre-clearance is because they don't have to deal with asylum seekers.

Subject to UK legal issues and remember we have a general election in under year from now and virtually no chance of parliamentary time being available (even less with the Scottish issues !) before 2016 !

However if these are overcome i'd expect T5/2 , Manchester and Edinburgh (if it remains in the UK) as the only viable points to offer or benefit from such a facility.

Manchester in particular would benefit in retaining/reducing leakage of TALC passengers via Dublin and allow promotion of the airport to transit carriers such as Pakistan and others

BTW on the LCY-SNN-JFK services Shannon pre-clearance is only guaranteed on BA001 Monday to Thursday services due to budget cuts and reduced operating times of the facility.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17): I'd assume they may be considering LCY for a pre-clearance station.

Why on earth would they do that? There are only two flights a day, and no airliner currently operating can take off from LCY's runway with passengers, bags and sufficient fuel to make it across the Atlantic without a refuelling stop. The "preclearance" stop at Shannon is actually a refuelling stop, during which there is also enough time to pre-clear the maximum 32 passengers on BA's all-business-class A318s. Nothing bigger can use LCY at all, any more passengers and the pre-clearance takes longer than the refuelling.

Provide preclearance at LCY and the passengers have to arrive earlier, but the stop at Shannon still has to happen, so the overall time taken is extended.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17): Eh, sort of. It slows down connections at the pre-clearance airport.

And increases check-in times for originating passengers as you then have to allow that extra time for pre-clearance. It is not the rainbow solution that some seem to imagine; as many cons as pros. I think that there is more mileage in the Automatic Passport Control kiosks and CBP's Mobile Passport Control program.

All I can say is bring it on.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3): Personally, I'd be happier if CBP provided adequate staffing at its US facilities before they provide pre-clearance outside the US. Some of the wait times to get through customs in US airports are appalling...

I can understand that!

Quoting VCEflyboy (Reply 13): Well I am sorry I am a broken record, but really common sense these days seems to be a rare commodity! Can't they just hire more immigration officials back home? You know how much that would cost to the American taxpayers? And that's money that could go to much needed airport upgrades, or again just simply hire customs officials at US airports.

And I can understand that - but since the host country pays for the service (staff etc.) to provide pre-clearance, then it's a money saving opportunity for the US really, and potentially a win win for you too so long as staff are not cut in response.

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 10): MIA. JFK and other are a real mess

Came through MIA on 10th August. Took me 35 mins stepping off plane (BA207) to stepping on car rental transit vehicle....pretty impressive I thought. The border/customs staff were good.

I agree with Revelation....spend the resource in the US and make sure part of that includes training for a smiley "Welcome to America!"

Quoting d l x (Reply 16): The benefit is not in lowering the wait clearing immigration in the US, but rather skipping it entirely. That way you can have onward domestic connections significantly easier. Instead of landing at IAH 3-4 hours before your connection departs, you can land 1-2 hours. That's in addition to allowing flights to airports that do not have significant customs service, such as DCA. Who knows -- maybe one of the countries is Portugal. I bet LIS-PVD would be a pretty good route, for instance. Preclearance thus opens a lot of doors.

In most other nations it is possible to have convenient 1-2 hour international connections without pre-clearance...

I agree with those demanding for better organization and facilities at the arrival airports!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6): If you look at volumes, the 5-biggest EU-US nations based on enplanments are: UK Germany France Netherlands Spain If you look at airport, top gateways are: LHR FRA CDG AMS MUC MAD ZRH FCO MAN ...

Most likely these airports will insist on the USA paying for the required airport conversions to meet Pre-clearance standards. With multiple congested terminals at most European hubs, this will add up to a significant amount and more congestion of, and interference in airport proceedings.

I am convinced a number of European airports will resist this proposal under the notion 'Let the US deal with their own immigration issues, why do we need to sort this out'.

Once the US has considered the cost and the finer details, don't be surprised to see this idea disappear into thin air.

Please no. It's not like Heathrow needs any more crazy switcheroos.

If its just Customs but no Immigration pre -clearance its pointless.

How is this going to be organised so that only US bound passengers go through pre clearance.

Currently, once you go through security, you are straight into duty free.

Also as already stated, many carriers fly from europe to the US that are not american.

I would argue this is part of a larger picture to address the installation of kiosks at most major airports which is showing new technology has threaten the old way of doing things. CBP figures instead of fighting the APC battle, work around it and push for overseas stations all in the name of safety.

Using the kiosks has reduced staffing in some areas and still has improved processing times. ORD is getting an additional 36 kiosks over the next several months on top of the 36 already in place. We're also getting 100 new officers starting in FY15.

I agree with others, focus on home first.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17): Pre-clearance at SNN. I'd assume they may be considering LCY for a pre-clearance station.

Quoting andy33 (Reply 19): Provide preclearance at LCY and the passengers have to arrive earlier, but the stop at Shannon still has to happen, so the overall time taken is extended.

Preclearance at LCY would not work as the US-bound flights need to make a fuel stop. This would void the precleared status of any flight as you can only fly nonstop to the US after you've precleared - no diversions authorised en route.

I can't see this really happening here in the UK...US flights from LHR for example are currently spread across 4 of the 5 terminals; space at LHR is at a premium, and I just can't see all USA airlines moving to just 1 terminal as this would mean another major upheaval of a lot of airlines, and all the associated costs with that, on top of course of building any US immigration and / or Customs clearing facility; I also doubt if any pre-clearence facility at LHR will be built at all relevant terminals (currently T2 for UA; T3 for VS, AA, US; T4 for DL, KU; T5 for BA; and sorry for missing anything!) as that would most likely be prohibitively expensive; nevertheless it'll be interesting to see how this all pans out

If I recalled it correctly, it was already subject to media rumor in Germany a few weeks ago.

Apparently, it is (at least in Germany) quite difficult to implement, since US officers would be virtually granted official duties and the Department of Minitry of Interior already raised legal concerns.

The article named Amsterdam (AMS) as focal point of the US initiative, likely due to the huge Delta/KLM presence?

Link (only in German, sorry): http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/...aefen-in-deutschland-a-983620.html

Just to aid in discussion, here are the actual statistics on wait times at every US airport:
http://awt.cbp.gov/

It gives an idea of where things are slow and where they aren't.

Quoting Malayil (Reply 7):

Its absolutely fantastic. Its such a great feeling knowing that when you land you don't have to go through that nonsense!
The officers are so much nicer aswell, they don't even care.

Here's an idea: how about expanding the Global Entry program.

I could see preclearance at KEF, possible ZRH and MXP, but LHR/FRA/CDG/AMS I'm not sure of.

The benefit here for the US government isn't so much the convenience factor for travellers.

The main reason is that the US can effectively add additional checks and make sure unwanted visitors never make it onto their soil.

Whether or not that would actually prevent the likes of Richard Reid or Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from getting on a plane is questionable. However, with the Syrian situation and high influx of European citizens going there, coming back and being able to travel to the US without a visa, putting up immigration checks in Europe by means of pre-clearance does make a lot of sense at this point.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3): Personally, I'd be happier if CBP provided adequate staffing at its US facilities before they provide pre-clearance outside the US. Some of the wait times to get through customs in US airports are appalling...

Extra staff won't solve the problem.

Quoting VCEflyboy (Reply 13): Well I am sorry I am a broken record, but really common sense these days seems to be a rare commodity! Can't they just hire more immigration officials back home?

I don't believe extra staff will solve the problem because the system itself is antiquated, and paranoid. At a lot of large European hubs for example you have separate immigration clearance checkpoints for arriving passengers vs. connecting passengers. In addition, other countries are not as paranoid as we are and the time to process each passengers is a lot shorter. The bottom line is that our system is not scalable.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 8): For the love of god, please no. AUH is already a mess, then multiply that to the size of LHR AMS CDG ? Yikes

Can't be any worse than at any of our main gateways where a 2 hour wait has become normal. Besides, not every flight would use this preclearance. In DUB for example, only last Fall did all flights started to use the per-clearance facility.

Quoting d l x (Reply 16): The benefit is not in lowering the wait clearing immigration in the US, but rather skipping it entirely. That way you can have onward domestic connections significantly easier.

There are multiple benefits. Essentially it increases the number of international gateways without having to build anything stateside. Some airports have capacity restrictions for international flights. This solves that problem. It has te potential to stimulate traffic by offering flights from Europe into U.S. airports that currently don't have CBP facilities. It will likely be an incentive to TATL LCCs. And it will definitely provide a competitive advantage to airlines from both sides of the Atlantic against the onslaught of the ME carriers, at least until they all get per-clearance too  

May be CBP seeing lot of red flags originating from Europe. Pre-Clearance always been

Quoting runway23 (Reply 40): The main reason is that the US can effectively add additional checks and make sure unwanted visitors never make it onto their soil. Whether or not that would actually prevent the likes of Richard Reid or Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from getting on a plane is questionable. However, with the Syrian situation and high influx of European citizens going there, coming back and being able to travel to the US without a visa, putting up immigration checks in Europe by means of pre-clearance does make a lot of sense at this point.

You are absolutely correct. Most likely DHS seeing lot of red flags originating from European airports. Passenger convenience if any is a byproduct.

As a good citizen flying into another country I favour "pre-clearence".
If a country has requirements for entry and there is a "problem with you", I would rather know before I have flown 4000 miles only to be turned around on arrival.  

If the US is seeking more pre-clearence then there is something that is advantagous to them,suggest that they share the cost with the requested country.

Based on previous a.net threads on pre-clearance the main issues were whether it was legal in relation to EU laws and segregation of the departure facilities.

Quoting VCEflyboy (Reply 13): Can't they just hire more immigration officials back home?

I think the big issue is peak staffing especially at major airports where a number of flight from say Europe arrive at roughly the same time.
Whether CBP can have staff work short shifts and only man all positions for a few hours a day is a question, so instead of working a consecutive 8 hour day, you break it into two 4 hour sections.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 27): How is this going to be organised so that only US bound passengers go through pre clearance.

Need a dedicated terminal for flights heading to the US.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter): For those that might not remember - LHR did have US preclearance facility at one time (circa late 70s/early 80s)

I pre-cleared on a BA :LHR-JFK flight from T4. I cannot recall exactly when but I guess it was very early 90s or perhaps late 80s

Quoting Malayil (Reply 7): Pre-clearance is such a terrible idea. I hope the UK doesn't implement it.

Why is it terrible? Pre-clearance has the advantage that from any given origination terminal it is unlikely that more than one aircraft will be departing at one time. With clearance on arrival the chances of just one aircraft arriving at a time are low. So queues are inevitable.

Quoting RTFM (Reply 20): And increases check-in times for originating passengers as you then have to allow that extra time for pre-clearance.

When I used LHR T4 pre-clearanve there was no queue for pre-clearance. This may be because the queues were at the check in desks or because I was early to take advantage of the airside view from the terminal. I cannot remember. However there was no electronic check-in back then so things could be very different now.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 27): How is this going to be organised so that only US bound passengers go through pre clearance.

Back then the pre-clearance channel was to the right immediately after clearing LHR T4 security. Notices diected travellers to the US (or JFK? - see below) to this channel. No difference really to getting in the right channel for immigration, customs or flight departure. All international airports are very experienced ar separating passengers into appropriate groups or channels.

Quoting Jamie2k9 (Reply 5): At LHR they would probably require all US airlines in one terminal, can't see them building more than one facility but staffing will still be a problem weather its the US or UK based.

My experience with pre-clearance at LHR was in the only terminal where it was available, T4. So the only airline it applied to back then was BA as they were the only airline flying to the US from T4. Someone has to pay for the additional (expat) costs of operating pre-clearance away from home and it will not be the US tax payer. It is equally unlikely that the UK tax payer will pay. So that leaves the airlines and, through them, the passengers. So if BA think pre-clearance gives them a sales and profit edge be it obtained at lower margins from more passengers or whatever, we could see pre-clearance in T5 at LHR. If UA see an advantage then it would be in T2. If its DL / VS and / or AA then T3. And if it happens it might not even cover all flights from that terminal to the USA., To the best of my recollection back whenever the service was only available for LHR-JFK flights - but this may be wrong. If it was only JFK, why restrict it? Possibly to keep queues at the pre-clearance to a minimum. Possibly to address the issue of delays at the most crowded arrival terminals on the other side. In other words the airline giving its customer the best possible experience. It is possible, for example, that many business travellers would prefer a rapid pre-clearance at LHR to twenty minutes in a luxury departure lounge with a load of 'freebies' that are actually paid for in the ticket price.

For the USA the advantage is that pre-clearance adds to the immigration capacity with someone else footing the cost of the necessary infrastructure and providing the terminal space - often scarce - for that infrastructuew.

Edit: Add last para.

[Edited 2014-09-13 06:48:02]

Quoting Jamie2k9 (Reply 5): At LHR they would probably require all US airlines in one terminal, can't see them building more than one facility but staffing will still be a problem weather its the US or UK based.

Getting BA to share Terminal 5 or move its US bound flights to another terminal is NOT going to happen.

Quoting DarrellNichols (Reply 30): I can't see this really happening here in the UK...US flights from LHR for example are currently spread across 4 of the 5 terminals; space at LHR is at a premium, and I just can't see all USA airlines moving to just 1 terminal as this would mean another major upheaval of a lot of airlines, and all the associated costs with that, on top of course of building any US immigration and / or Customs clearing facility; I also doubt if any pre-clearence facility at LHR will be built at all relevant terminals (currently T2 for UA; T3 for VS, AA, US; T4 for DL, KU; T5 for BA; and sorry for missing anything!) as that would most likely be prohibitively expensive; nevertheless it'll be interesting to see how this all pans out

There is no terminal at LHR big enough to handle are the US bound flights, just too many of them. This "pre-clearance concept" works at smaller airports like Dublin and Shannon not the airports with Muliple terminals like Heathrow.

Quoting lennyhamburg (Reply 31): e article named Amsterdam (AMS) as focal point of the US initiative, likely due to the huge Delta/KLM presence?

This could work in Amsterdam since everything is one terminal.

I think the most likely airports to get pre-clearance to the USA at departure airports are AMS, CDG, DUB, FRA, LHR, MUC and ZRH initially. Afterwards, I can foresee BCN, BER (if they finally get it open!), FCO, MAD and MXP added to the list.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 49): This "pre-clearance concept" works at smaller airports like Dublin and Shannon not the airports with Muliple terminals like Heathrow.

I think it would suit Gatwick just right.  

From a premium passenger perspective, preclearance can be awful.

A lot of times, the lounge facilities are prior to the pre-clearance facility, meaning the passenger has to leave early to go through formalities and then doesn't have a proper place to wait - it's just sitting at the gate.

As someone with Global Entry, I'd much rather clear back in the states - the most I've ever waited was maybe for 1-2 people. Earlier this week, I landed in DTW from ICN at 1135...and was sitting on a connecting flight 25 minutes later (this after walking to the FIS, clearing formalities, going upstairs, reclearing security and walking a bit to my gate).

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 50): I think the most likely airports to get pre-clearance to the USA at departure airports are AMS, CDG, DUB, FRA, LHR, MUC and ZRH initially. Afterwards, I can foresee BCN, BER (if they finally get it open!), FCO, MAD and MXP added to the list.

Well, out of this list, DUB has already got US preclearance.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 49): There is no terminal at LHR big enough to handle are the US bound flights, just too many of them. This "pre-clearance concept" works at smaller airports like Dublin and Shannon not the airports with Muliple terminals like He

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 49): This could work in Amsterdam since everything is one terminal.

Dublin has two terminals. CBP is located only in T2. Realistically, you opt to locate all US flights in one terminal, but in the case of the very large airports like LHR, where you may have an even spread of US departures across more than one terminal, it may be feasible to locate in more than one.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 11): I can imagine that having a trans-Atlantic load of fuel and taking off from practically downtown Washington DC on DCA's 7100 foot runway might prove more than a little dangerous. How is LCY-JFK done?

LCY is only 4948 ft long - that is a bit tight. SNN stop accomplishes two thing - preclear customs and load fuel. The logic is that pre-clear in SNN saves the pax the same time on the other end of the flight (and takes the random factor out of customs wait times) and thus doesn't really cost any time to re-fuel.

DCA at 7169 ft should be no problem for an A318 to go TATL (although I do not have the numbers for BAs A318 to confirm) I see nothing regarding runway length that would make it "more than a little dangerous"

There are two problems with DCA: Preimeter rule, and security rules that are unique to DCA.

Quoting Malayil (Reply 7): Pre-clearance is such a terrible idea. I hope the UK doesn't implement it.

Why? Under the right circumstances it works great.

Quoting d l x (Reply 16): Who knows -- maybe one of the countries is Portugal. I bet LIS-PVD would be a pretty good route, for instance.

Never say never, but I doubt it. There are currently only about 5-6 flights a day to the U.S. and I doubt the Portuguese government would be in a position to spend money on that right now. The airport at LIS could conceivably be transformed by blocking off the end portion of the international terminal, but the waiting area would suck, with barely any stores or lounges (OK, that wouldn't change much versus current...).

More importantly than that, the demand from LIS is only to major international gateways that have immigration facilities. Demand to/from PVD and OAK would primarily be to the Azores.

Quoting DarrellNichols (Reply 30): I can't see this really happening here in the UK...

Why? LHR would be absolutely perfect for this. It would take major investment to move all the lounges / check-in facilities / etc. but it would definitely be worth it. Perhaps 1-2 of the outer islands of Terminal 5 could be converted for this purpose.

Quoting bill142 (Reply 37): Here's an idea: how about expanding the Global Entry program.

That would be awesome.

Quoting deltairlines (Reply 52): From a premium passenger perspective, preclearance can be awful. A lot of times, the lounge facilities are prior to the pre-clearance facility, meaning the passenger has to leave early to go through formalities and then doesn't have a proper place to wait - it's just sitting at the gate.

Depends on where you are. Only pre-cleared in two locations (Toronto and Bermuda) but in Toronto the pre-clearance terminal has everything you need (lounges, shops, restaurants, etc.) and in Bermuda the whole airport is past pre-clearance (best that I could tell).