US Pre-clearance at airports under fire

[Jaydee]

 

" Ottawa gets an earful on proposed expansion of U.S. border pre-clearance powers "

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pre-clearance-u-s-travellers-bill-c-23-reaction-1.4213797

[Guest]

Just imagine how those same whiners will react if the US says goodbye, no more preclearance......  We lobbied very hard over the years to get the preclearance. 

[st27]

If pre clearance gets too complicated...imagine the number of passengers that will say screw it, one more reason to travel to yyz,yow and yul regional airports....aka buf, ogs, and plb.

[Zan Vetter]

Preclearance is terrible, I wouldn't be sad to see it end. Who does this help? And particularly in YYZ, when they close at 2100 regardless of weather, two-hr red alerts, giant snowstorms, dozens of aircraft yet to arrive with passengers who are attempting to connect to US-bound flights; nope, it's 9pm folks see you tomorrow. This must cost the airlines millions in missed connections. 

For crew, on a turn, preclearance is an irritant. Without it we would just stay in the aircraft at the out station and not clear at all. Like everywhere else. On a trans border turn (USA to USA), unless the half dozen conditions are met (more and more rare these days), everybody off and back inside to re-clear USA customs. What could be a :40 minute turn is minimum an hour because of this. And we're in our own country.

Absent getting rid of it altogether, a simple crew line would be nice at the busiest transborder airport in the continent. 

[Guest]

From a passengers POV, I love preclearance.  Aircraft lands in the US and away we go to our final destination. No line up for customs etc. Yes there is additional time at origin but that is easy to factor in but a delay at destination could cause problems in connections to other flights, cruise ships etc etc etc. 

[Warren]

I always thought Preclearance was put in to help US carriers.  They could take pax from YYZ - ORD (or ATL etc) and the aircraft and some pax would continue to Salt Lake or some other western destination that Canadian carriers couldn’t get approval for.  The worst example was Eastern used to fly YYZ - BUF and on to MCO, TPA, FLL, MIA while Air Canada and others couldn’t get any more landing rights.  That’s all changed now so they’ve made the fees so high for preclearance that it encourages some price conscious pax to drive to BUF etc.   Its not for the convenience of Canadians.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Warren said:

I always thought Preclearance was put in to help US carriers.  They could take pax from YYZ - ORD (or ATL etc) and the aircraft and some pax would continue to Salt Lake or some other western destination that Canadian carriers couldn’t get approval for.  The worst example was Eastern used to fly YYZ - BUF and on to MCO, TPA, FLL, MIA while Air Canada and others couldn’t get any more landing rights.  That’s all changed now so they’ve made the fees so high for preclearance that it encourages some price conscious pax to drive to BUF etc.   Its not for the convenience of Canadians.

It is for the convenience for this Canadian. Going into the US from an origin airport that has preclearance.. No lengthy wait at my destination going through US Customs and immigration.

[Zan Vetter]

33 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Yes there is additional time at origin but that is easy to factor in but a delay at destination could cause problems in connections to other flights, cruise ships etc etc etc. 

Lots of pax misconnect in YYZ, and preclearance is the problem. Without it they could have just gone to the gate and cleared after landing in USA. There is no time savings it is just moved and, frankly, the time pressures are transferred from customs/US or other airlines, to Canadian airlines. I never really considered the sovereignty angle, but given the real lack of advantage to Canadian airlines, I'd be in favour of abolishing preclearance. Sounds like the politicians like it tho, or at least the ambassador does.

 

[DEFCON]

What's the advantage of standing in line here versus over there? US customs is still allowed to and does shake people down over there if they 'feel like it' regardless of your precleared status.

If they detain you over here and decide to keep you on an unrestricted Customs hold, will the victim be held here in Canada, or shipped to an American detention facility?

If held, do you retain any Canadian Rights, or will you be deemed to have given them up by entering the local facility?

Will you have access to a lawyer?

If you have to go before a Judge, will the appearance be in a Canadian, or American court?

Canada's already given up the sanctity of Canadian citizenship to the Americans in an number of ways that most Canadians are unaware of. This latest insult is just another log on that fire; we're paying a heck of a price for our immigration policies and probably deservedly so. 

[Guest]

DEFCON: the advantage of standing in line here vs at destination is that I can build in my advance time at origin and then be quite certain re when I will be avail at destination for my next connection (ground or air). My crystal ball can not forecast what is happening at my destination airport in customs etc. but when leaving I can factor in enough time at origin to go though the preclear  process. 

[Jaydee]

While seasoned travellers probably like it, I think having pre clearance in Canada gives Canadian Airlines and Airports a bad rap for being disorderly and congested to the average Joe Blow. 

[DEFCON]

Thanks Malcolm, I didn't consider the potential advantage of pre-planed Customs timing.

That raises an interesting question; are the Inspectors pressured to preform to meet departure time constraints.

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, DEFCON said:

Thanks Malcolm, I didn't consider the potential advantage of pre-planed Customs timing.

That raises an interesting question; are the Inspectors pressured to preform to meet departure time constraints.

 

I would bet not!  

[Fido]

44 minutes ago, DEFCON said:

are the Inspectors pressured to preform to meet departure time constraints.

Just the opposite.

I have seen many times an inspector delaying the pax and their luggage until the get the signal that the aircraft has left.  They then 'release' the pax.

[FA@AC]

I think most passengers prefer pre-clearance to US CBP facilities at JFK, EWR, MIA, ORD and most other US airports by a long shot.

I doubt that AC would be able to serve DCA or LGA without it.  At ORD AC aircraft would likely have to park at one terminal for CBP clearance and then be towed to a different one for departure.

[Super 80]

9 hours ago, Warren said:

I always thought Preclearance was put in to help US carriers.

There was pre-clearance for trains starting around 1890.

Pre-clearance at YYZ was introduced around the time LGA lost it's immigration facilities, 1952-1953ish.