With extended back ups and airlines now asking passengers to arrive at the aiport 3 hours before departure....and flights still delayed due to late processing, is pre-clearance worth it for airlines flying from Canada to the US?

The costs for the airlines must be astronomical; the impact to airports to manage the space for long queue flows, costly; the experience by passengers waiting in long lines, unbearable.

Since airlines, even with pre-clearance can only fly to airports staffed to handle customes and immigration, why shouldn't airlines move the problem to the arriving airport? Most of those airports are staffed better to handle the incremental International volume. This aligns with how flights from airports such as YTZ without pre-clearance are handled.

If queue delays are low priority to solve at source, perhaps passengers might see higher priority at destination and the airlines don't have to worry about disrupted schedules.

yyztpa2 wrote:

why shouldn't airlines move the problem to the arriving airport?

It is not up to the airlines but the USA government, especially the Dept. of Homeland Security. Other than trying to gain political favor, it is all about staffing issues in the USA and where the government want to relieve pressure. If pax from Canada have flight option to all USA airport, its not much help, however, if all flights from Bermuda go to either NYC or ATL, a preclearance facility there takes some pressure off those arriving airport.
On the other hand, some may say it is just good customer service to US citizens by their government, they just walk off the plane, collect bags and go.

yyztpa2 wrote:

With extended back ups and airlines now asking passengers to arrive at the aiport 3 hours before departure....and flights still delayed due to late processing, is pre-clearance worth it for airlines flying from Canada to the US?

The costs for the airlines must be astronomical; the impact to airports to manage the space for long queue flows, costly; the experience by passengers waiting in long lines, unbearable.

Since airlines, even with pre-clearance can only fly to airports staffed to handle customes and immigration, why shouldn't airlines move the problem to the arriving airport? Most of those airports are staffed better to handle the incremental International volume. This aligns with how flights from airports such as YTZ without pre-clearance are handled.

If queue delays are low priority to solve at source, perhaps passengers might see higher priority at destination and the airlines don't have to worry about disrupted schedules.

It should be done at whichever airport has the most volume to optimize usage of customs people and facilities to keep costs as low as possible.
That means not in BHM or AUH, but it should be in CUN. It’s often done now at the least efficient location for political reasons.

It is not efficient for US carriers, in particular, to send passengers arriving from Canada to a CBP facility before they connect to another flight. Most passengers will have either a US or Canadian passport, both of which allow immediate access to the US, and this is one of the reasons why preclearance from Canada makes sense. Slow preclearance lines likely stem from poor staffing on the part of the DHS, as do the long lines we have at facilities in the US. It is a chronic problem that will never be resolved unless the US Congress earmarks more money for hiring CBP staff. One of the reasons why nothing has been done to make CBP more efficient is that most US citizens rarely travel out of the country, so there's no political pressure to do anything about the problem. This does nothing but hurt the image of the US in the minds of visitors, yet few Americans care because they assume that it isn't a big deal, which is the way many Americans view problems that have nothing to do with children or their own taxes. Welcome to the United States.

TerminalD wrote:

It should be done at whichever airport has the most volume to optimize usage of customs people and facilities to keep costs as low as possible.
That means not in BHM or AUH, but it should be in CUN. It’s often done now at the least efficient location for political reasons.

Not so much. The airports themselves pay abut 85% of the preclearance, so it is done for airports who are willing to absorb those costs - not for "political" gain. It is an effective way to cut-down on the hoards of people waiting to go through CIS facilities in many crowded US airports (think: MIA. ATL, JFK in particular), and provides an additional security benefit in denying any "dubious" passenger a flight to a US airport before he/she can be denied entry.

https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/frontline-preclearance

usdcaguy wrote:

It is not efficient for US carriers, in particular, to send passengers arriving from Canada to a CBP facility before they connect to another flight. Most passengers will have either a US or Canadian passport, both of which allow immediate access to the US, and this is one of the reasons why preclearance from Canada makes sense. Slow preclearance lines likely stem from poor staffing on the part of the DHS, as do the long lines we have at facilities in the US. It is a chronic problem that will never be resolved unless the US Congress earmarks more money for hiring CBP staff. One of the reasons why nothing has been done to make CBP more efficient is that most US citizens rarely travel out of the country, so there's no political pressure to do anything about the problem. This does nothing but hurt the image of the US in the minds of visitors, yet few Americans care because they assume that it isn't a big deal, which is the way many Americans view problems that have nothing to do with children or their own taxes. Welcome to the United States.

Well-said!

usdcaguy wrote:

It is not efficient for US carriers, in particular, to send passengers arriving from Canada to a CBP facility before they connect to another flight. Most passengers will have either a US or Canadian passport, both of which allow immediate access to the US, and this is one of the reasons why preclearance from Canada makes sense. Slow preclearance lines likely stem from poor staffing on the part of the DHS, as do the long lines we have at facilities in the US. It is a chronic problem that will never be resolved unless the US Congress earmarks more money for hiring CBP staff. One of the reasons why nothing has been done to make CBP more efficient is that most US citizens rarely travel out of the country, so there's no political pressure to do anything about the problem. This does nothing but hurt the image of the US in the minds of visitors, yet few Americans care because they assume that it isn't a big deal, which is the way many Americans view problems that have nothing to do with children or their own taxes. Welcome to the United States.

Agree with this - the problem is on connections for US airlines which International end tries to streamline for. Granted pre-clearance from locations such as Bahamas and Cancun are of great benefit to Americans for this reason, but at Canadian airports, pre-clearance is primarily for Canadian passengers who are generally not connecting in the US. They have limited clout to appropriately staff US pre-clearance at their home airports other than through inter-governmental channels. US citizens can complain throught representation

There are plenty of flights from Canadian airports without pre-clearance which airlines choose to fly from. Those arriving passengers are cleared at the arrival airport. All Porter Ailines flights or flights from airports such as YHM do not preclear. I've made the choice to take those and have an arrival in the US of 30-60 minutes rather than go through the zoo at YYZ and at other Canadian pre-clear facilituies. That, or drive across the border.

alfa164 wrote:

TerminalD wrote:

It should be done at whichever airport has the most volume to optimize usage of customs people and facilities to keep costs as low as possible.
That means not in BHM or AUH, but it should be in CUN. It’s often done now at the least efficient location for political reasons.

Not so much. The airports themselves pay abut 85% of the preclearance, so it is done for airports who are willing to absorb those costs - not for "political" gain. It is an effective way to cut-down on the hoards of people waiting to go through CIS facilities in many crowded US airports (think: MIA. ATL, JFK in particular), and provides an additional security benefit in denying any "dubious" passenger a flight to a US airport before he/she can be denied entry.

https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/frontline-preclearance

usdcaguy wrote:

It is not efficient for US carriers, in particular, to send passengers arriving from Canada to a CBP facility before they connect to another flight. Most passengers will have either a US or Canadian passport, both of which allow immediate access to the US, and this is one of the reasons why preclearance from Canada makes sense. Slow preclearance lines likely stem from poor staffing on the part of the DHS, as do the long lines we have at facilities in the US. It is a chronic problem that will never be resolved unless the US Congress earmarks more money for hiring CBP staff. One of the reasons why nothing has been done to make CBP more efficient is that most US citizens rarely travel out of the country, so there's no political pressure to do anything about the problem. This does nothing but hurt the image of the US in the minds of visitors, yet few Americans care because they assume that it isn't a big deal, which is the way many Americans view problems that have nothing to do with children or their own taxes. Welcome to the United States.

Well-said!

Works well from non Canadian airports generally serving American returning home from vacations.

Personally, I love the concept. Makes the U.S. arrival end so much easier not having to worry about the hassle and unknown time it might take for immigration and customers clearance after what could be a very long journey.

Also from a security perspective, it keeps potential inadmissible or problematic passengers at their origin point, not on U.S. soil.

Pre-clearance benefits U.S. airlines to offer shorter connection times at their U.S. hubs as flights arrive as any domestic trip. It also offers other benefits including reduced ground staffing needs, the ability to schedule crews more flexibly without U.S. end FIS, and quicker ground turns etc..

Is pre-clearence worth it? From a passengers point of view - uh, hell yeah! Wish we Canadians had it coming back - make travelling so much more enjoyable.

Preclearance is worth it for airlines that operate nonstop flights to airports such as LGA and DCA that don't have international arrivals facilities.

LAXintl wrote:

Personally, I love the concept. Makes the U.S. arrival end so much easier not having to worry about the hassle and unknown time it might take for immigration and customers clearance after what could be a very long journey.

Also from a security perspective, it keeps potential inadmissible or problematic passengers at their origin point, not on U.S. soil.

Pre-clearance benefits U.S. airlines to offer shorter connection times at their U.S. hubs as flights arrive as any domestic trip. It also offers other benefits including reduced ground staffing needs, the ability to schedule crews more flexibly without U.S. end FIS, and quicker ground turns etc..

Any measure, system or service that expedites airport transit times for both passengers, crew or cargo will always be worth the effort.

Preclearance makes flights like YYZ/YUL-LGA/DCA viable, so it's a win.

alfa164 wrote:

TerminalD wrote:

It should be done at whichever airport has the most volume to optimize usage of customs people and facilities to keep costs as low as possible.
That means not in BHM or AUH, but it should be in CUN. It’s often done now at the least efficient location for political reasons.

Not so much. The airports themselves pay abut 85% of the preclearance, so it is done for airports who are willing to absorb those costs - not for "political" gain. It is an effective way to cut-down on the hoards of people waiting to go through CIS facilities in many crowded US airports (think: MIA. ATL, JFK in particular), and provides an additional security benefit in denying any "dubious" passenger a flight to a US airport before he/she can be denied entry.

Double not so much. That practice did not start until AUH offered to do that. That’s absolutely not happening at the original pre-clearance locations like Canada and SNN. CBP proposed a fee of $74 per pax at AMS and were laughed out of town. The Canadian airports aren’t paying that bill. American taxpayers are.

And YES, most CBP passenger airline locations are political. There are numerous CBP facilities at airports with scant international flights. Even an airport as big as STL has a single Mexico flight processing per day most of the year. It gets much worse than that. Take a look at airports like ELP and ABQ. There are a lot of them and they are all political and like most things involving government once they are in place they don’t go away even if the flights do.

TerminalD wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

TerminalD wrote:

It should be done at whichever airport has the most volume to optimize usage of customs people and facilities to keep costs as low as possible. That means not in BHM or AUH, but it should be in CUN. It’s often done now at the least efficient location for political reasons.

Not so much. The airports themselves pay abut 85% of the preclearance, so it is done for airports who are willing to absorb those costs - not for "political" gain. It is an effective way to cut-down on the hoards of people waiting to go through CIS facilities in many crowded US airports (think: MIA. ATL, JFK in particular), and provides an additional security benefit in denying any "dubious" passenger a flight to a US airport before he/she can be denied entry.

Double not so much. That practice did not start until AUH offered to do that. That’s absolutely not happening at the original pre-clearance locations like Canada and SNN. CBP proposed a fee of $74 per pax at AMS and were laughed out of town. The Canadian airports aren’t paying that bill. American taxpayers are. And YES, most CBP passenger airline locations are political. There are numerous CBP facilities at airports with scant international flights. Even an airport as big as STL has a single Mexico flight processing per day most of the year. It gets much worse than that. Take a look at airports like ELP and ABQ. There are a lot of them and they are all political and like most things involving government once they are in place they don’t go away even if the flights do.

Do you have any facts, citations, or links to verify your contention - or is it just a part of your conspiracy theory?

yyztpa2 wrote:

With extended back ups and airlines now asking passengers to arrive at the aiport 3 hours before departure....and flights still delayed due to late processing, is pre-clearance worth it for airlines flying from Canada to the US?

The costs for the airlines must be astronomical; the impact to airports to manage the space for long queue flows, costly; the experience by passengers waiting in long lines, unbearable.

Since airlines, even with pre-clearance can only fly to airports staffed to handle customes and immigration, why shouldn't airlines move the problem to the arriving airport? Most of those airports are staffed better to handle the incremental International volume. This aligns with how flights from airports such as YTZ without pre-clearance are handled.

If queue delays are low priority to solve at source, perhaps passengers might see higher priority at destination and the airlines don't have to worry about disrupted schedules.

If it weren't worth it to those places who are willing to pay for it then it wouldn't be around. Some places are pulling out all the stops when it comes to wooing more passengers, including connecting passengers in the case of AUH or Ireland. Others like the Bahamas or Aruba are trying to go the extra mile to chase the tourist traffic, and if you've been there you can see why.

TerminalD wrote:

It should be done at whichever airport has the most volume to optimize usage of customs people and facilities to keep costs as low as possible. That means not in BHM or AUH, but it should be in CUN. It’s often done now at the least efficient location for political reasons.

CUN or PUJ evidently do well enough without paying for the extra incentive. To me, the "Government Benefits" section given by CBP makes the most amount of sense in selling this program to the few takers outside of Canada to date:

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/preclearance

ua900 wrote:

TerminalD wrote:

It should be done at whichever airport has the most volume to optimize usage of customs people and facilities to keep costs as low as possible. That means not in BHM or AUH, but it should be in CUN. It’s often done now at the least efficient location for political reasons.

CUN or PUJ evidently do well enough without paying for the extra incentive. To me, the "Government Benefits" section given by CBP makes the most amount of sense in selling this program to the few takers outside of Canada to date:

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/preclearance

I think you are missing the cost/economy of scale issue. There are like 10-20 U.S airport CBP locations that exist solely to accept a handful of CUN flights per week or month. Absent politics it would make a lot more sense to fully process those flights in CUN where CBP staff and equipment would be highly utilized and close those USA locations. Of course, it won't happen because it is politically too difficult and saving money is never a goal.

TerminalD wrote:

And YES, most CBP passenger airline locations are political. There are numerous CBP facilities at airports with scant international flights. Even an airport as big as STL has a single Mexico flight processing per day most of the year. It gets much worse than that. Take a look at airports like ELP and ABQ. There are a lot of them and they are all political and like most things involving government once they are in place they don’t go away even if the flights do.

I can only imagine STL is simply a hold-over from the TWA days. It's probably 1/5 the size now in terms of numbers of officers, and I'm not even sure where the customs hall is anymore.

Also ABQ - describing that as a CBP port of entry is technically correct but it's practically by appointment if you're unscheduled. The one time I've diverted there coming back international, it took us at least an hour to rouse up CBP officers to meet the airplane, just so we could get some gas and keep going. I imagine ELP is the same.

CBP has to cover some of these common diversion airports, otherwise you end up with things like a nightmare diversion of an international flight to a field with no customs, and CBP officers driving 7-10 hours with pax just bottled up on the plane. We don't argue with Bangor, for example, having a robust CBP presence, despite scheduled service on regional jets only to a few select domestic cities, because so much international traffic bolts for Bangor or Boston when the weather gets really bad at JFK or EWR. Likewise, I could easily see an aircraft bound for a number of US cities booking it to ELP in summer storm season.

TerminalD wrote:

ua900 wrote:

TerminalD wrote:

It should be done at whichever airport has the most volume to optimize usage of customs people and facilities to keep costs as low as possible. That means not in BHM or AUH, but it should be in CUN. It’s often done now at the least efficient location for political reasons.

CUN or PUJ evidently do well enough without paying for the extra incentive. To me, the "Government Benefits" section given by CBP makes the most amount of sense in selling this program to the few takers outside of Canada to date:

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/preclearance

I think you are missing the cost/economy of scale issue. There are like 10-20 U.S airport CBP locations that exist solely to accept a handful of CUN flights per week or month. Absent politics it would make a lot more sense to fully process those flights in CUN where CBP staff and equipment would be highly utilized and close those USA locations. Of course, it won't happen because it is politically too difficult and saving money is never a goal.

Nah, I see the point. I think Ronald Reagan got close to the mark when he stated that "The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program". Much like Essental Air Service, no local politico wants to say that they lost something, including CBP, however unwarranted that may be in terms of cost. In politics, you're still measured on what you deliver back to your constituents.

And mind you that a lot of your local airports are going to be city or county owned, and every flight you can add (including weekends to CUN) will be seen as a win for your jurisdiction and your district. And you'll need these local officials and appointees during your next relection fundraiser. If government exists to serve the people, and CBP is required to enter the country, you can bank on people fighting to get or retain TSA, CBP, EAS, lounges, easy Global Entry enrollment, and even Clear to enhance or maintain a given airport whenever they get a chance, whether it's economical or not.

ua900 wrote:

TerminalD wrote:

ua900 wrote:

CUN or PUJ evidently do well enough without paying for the extra incentive. To me, the "Government Benefits" section given by CBP makes the most amount of sense in selling this program to the few takers outside of Canada to date:

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/preclearance

I think you are missing the cost/economy of scale issue. There are like 10-20 U.S airport CBP locations that exist solely to accept a handful of CUN flights per week or month. Absent politics it would make a lot more sense to fully process those flights in CUN where CBP staff and equipment would be highly utilized and close those USA locations. Of course, it won't happen because it is politically too difficult and saving money is never a goal.

Nah, I see the point. I think Ronald Reagan got close to the mark when he stated that "The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program". Much like Essental Air Service, no local politico wants to say that they lost something, including CBP, however unwarranted that may be in terms of cost. In politics, you're still measured on what you deliver back to your constituents.

And mind you that a lot of your local airports are going to be city or county owned, and every flight you can add (including weekends to CUN) will be seen as a win for your jurisdiction and your district. And you'll need these local officials and appointees during your next relection fundraiser. If government exists to serve the people, and CBP is required to enter the country, you can bank on people fighting to get or retain TSA, CBP, EAS, lounges, easy Global Entry enrollment, and even Clear to enhance or maintain a given airport whenever they get a chance, whether it's economical or not.

Sure, but they wouldn't lose flights if they were processed in CUN rather than the dinky U.S. airport. So losing flights isn't part of the debate. Agree on eternal life.

Living in the US and having flown from Canada to home over 200 times I am a big fan of preclearance. Sure it's a pain, but getting it over before the flight rather than having to do it after landing is a blessing, at least to me.

ua900 wrote:

TerminalD wrote:

ua900 wrote:

CUN or PUJ evidently do well enough without paying for the extra incentive. To me, the "Government Benefits" section given by CBP makes the most amount of sense in selling this program to the few takers outside of Canada to date:

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/preclearance

I think you are missing the cost/economy of scale issue. There are like 10-20 U.S airport CBP locations that exist solely to accept a handful of CUN flights per week or month. Absent politics it would make a lot more sense to fully process those flights in CUN where CBP staff and equipment would be highly utilized and close those USA locations. Of course, it won't happen because it is politically too difficult and saving money is never a goal.

Nah, I see the point. I think Ronald Reagan got close to the mark when he stated that "The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program". Much like Essental Air Service, no local politico wants to say that they lost something, including CBP, however unwarranted that may be in terms of cost. In politics, you're still measured on what you deliver back to your constituents.

And mind you that a lot of your local airports are going to be city or county owned, and every flight you can add (including weekends to CUN) will be seen as a win for your jurisdiction and your district. And you'll need these local officials and appointees during your next relection fundraiser. If government exists to serve the people, and CBP is required to enter the country, you can bank on people fighting to get or retain TSA, CBP, EAS, lounges, easy Global Entry enrollment, and even Clear to enhance or maintain a given airport whenever they get a chance, whether it's economical or not.

I hear you, but there's also an air service development aspect to it. When places like BNA and MSY got their TATL flights, the existence of staffing and infrastructure to clear the extant but limited Mexico flying made the logistics a lot easier.

It was an awesome feeling getting it done and over with in DUB and walking off the plane like normal in IAD. Made J more enjoyable as I was able to not have to think about dealing with any law enforcement after a long flight (I don't hate cops, I just don't like dealing with them, makes me uneasy even when I don't do anything wrong). We were even able to make an earlier flight that was delayed instead of our original one and got home even faster.

alfa164 wrote:

Not so much. The airports themselves pay abut 85% of the preclearance,

This is not the case for the 8 airports in Canada with preclearance at the moment. The US foots the bill at those airports.

However, according to this link, due to the new 2016 preclearance agreement between Canada and the US, it is now up to the Canadian airports to pay for the US CBP preclearance facilities. This is why YTZ and YQB will have a hard time getting preclearance. They will need to fund it on their own, or with Canadian government help.

TerminalD wrote:

The Canadian airports aren’t paying that bill. American taxpayers are.

Exactly. However, as of now, new Canadian airports wishing to get preclearance, such as YTZ and YQB, will need to foot the bill.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

Not so much. The airports themselves pay abut 85% of the preclearance,

This is not the case for the 8 airports in Canada with preclearance at the moment. The US foots the bill at those airports.

However, according to this link, due to the new 2016 preclearance agreement between Canada and the US, it is now up to the Canadian airports to pay for the US CBP preclearance facilities. This is why YTZ and YQB will have a hard time getting preclearance. They will need to fund it on their own, or with Canadian government help.

TerminalD wrote:

The Canadian airports aren’t paying that bill. American taxpayers are.

Exactly. However, as of now, new Canadian airports wishing to get preclearance, such as YTZ and YQB, will need to foot the bill.

True, but passengers will pay the bill. Canadian airports are privatized so it will be added as a fee of some sort into the ticket.