USA Pre-clearance facilities in the UK

[signed]

It's just simply about cost and space, nothing more.

I don't see how the cost is not in absolute positive to the airlines. Especially in such an epicenter as London.

 

[AlastairFraser]

That is not true, extra time is needed for the US unpleasantness in addition to the regular security theatre.

But you're told to turn up at Heathrow 3hrs before a long hail flight anyway, so all you'll be doing is going through security then waiting at a gate, compared to doing both security and preclearance during your time at Dublin.

More likely BA1 and BA2 return if BA orders the Boom Overture if it's completed. Japan Airlines, United and American have already placed orders for it.

Would this be suitable for London City though? The major advantages of BA1 were the London City takeoff, plus the refuel and preclearance at Shannon.

 

[Chester1]

Would this be suitable for London City though? The major advantages of BA1 were the London City takeoff, plus the refuel and preclearance at Shannon.

There are enough problems getting the A220-300 authorised to use London City Airport!

 

[AlastairFraser]

There are enough problems getting the A220-300 authorised to use London City Airport!

Indeed. I can't see it being so popular if it just went from Heathrow. Maybe they could ask Bromley if they'd let them use Biggin Hill....

 

[Elwyn]

A factor that will be important to the US authorities thinking about providing pre-clearance facilities is getting a reasonable workload. They have to employ a load of staff and maintain expensive IT systems etc. They are not going to do that for an airport with just 1 flight a day to the US. It’s going to be somewhere with a lot more than that.

Based on the set up at Dublin and Shannon, they don’t need 24 hour coverage (because flights only depart to the US between something like 0900 - 1600) but they still need about 20 staff on duty 7 days a week at both airports. Many of those are locally engaged (ie US citizens resident in Ireland) but some have to be seconded from the US and so need accommodation and other expenses, including regular flights back to the US. Even if the airport authorities provide free premises, there are a lot of other overheads, eg refresher training and so on that make it all quite expensive. They are only going to agree to this at airports with sufficient flights to the US to make it reasonably cost effective.

 

[RailWonderer]

Would this be suitable for London City though? The major advantages of BA1 were the London City takeoff, plus the refuel and preclearance at Shannon.

BA1 and 2 don't have to use LCY, the Concorde flights left from Heathrow. Plus if the flight will be far quicker, who cares about clearance on landing and possible queues at Heathrow T5?

 

[Chester1]

A factor that will be important to the US authorities thinking about providing pre-clearance facilities is getting a reasonable workload. They have to employ a load of staff and maintain expensive IT systems etc. They are not going to do that for an airport with just 1 flight a day to the US. It’s going to be somewhere with a lot more than that.

Based on the set up at Dublin and Shannon, they don’t need 24 hour coverage (because flights only depart to the US between something like 0900 - 1600) but they still need about 20 staff on duty 7 days a week at both airports. Many of those are locally engaged (ie US citizens resident in Ireland) but some have to be seconded from the US and so need accommodation and other expenses, including regular flights back to the US. Even if the airport authorities provide free premises, there are a lot of other overheads, eg refresher training and so on that make it all quite expensive. They are only going to agree to this at airports with sufficient flights to the US to make it reasonably cost effective.

I might be remembering incorrectly but I think MAG has said at some point that they would be expected to pay all the costs of the pre clearance facility. If it was simply a matter of providing the space and even paying (like Eurostar) for equipment there would be pre clearance at Manchester or prepared to launch when terminal 2 extension is finished.

 

[Elwyn]

As far as UK Border controls are concerned, there is legislation that specifies what an airport (or seaport) must provide in terms of immigration and customs controls if they want international services. (Examination areas, interview rooms, computer server rooms and similar.) These have to be provided free. Additional non statutory facilities eg training rooms, recreational rooms, admin support accommodation etc have to be paid for like any other tenant. And airports are not cheap accommodation providers. I know from professional experience. Sometimes up to 20 times the local commercial rental rates.

There is also legislation that provides special immigration facilities in the UK. So when Concorde operated, BA purchased 2 dedicated desks at immigration to ensure that their passengers passed through quickly. No matter how long the normal queues were.

There is no UK statutory requirement to provide US immigration authorities with facilities. It’s an entirely commercial arrangement between the airport and the US authorities. But common sense tells you no airport is ever going to commit to cover all US costs. Training, pensions, litigation, recruitment, uniforms, travel & subsistence, procurement, and so on. So the US Government will always be picking up major costs. They will be looking for value for money, and won’t be interested in airports with few or precarious services to the US.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That is not true, extra time is needed for the US unpleasantness in addition to the regular security theatre.

I know. But the time you’re standing in the TSA queue is time you’d otherwise be spending walking aimlessly around duty free or drinking an extortionately-priced pint of Guinness. But standing in the TSA queue at JFK is time you could be spending getting to where you’re going.

 

[Chester1]

As far as UK Border controls are concerned, there is legislation that specifies what an airport (or seaport) must provide in terms of immigration and customs controls if they want international services. (Examination areas, interview rooms, computer server rooms and similar.) These have to be provided free. Additional non statutory facilities eg training rooms, recreational rooms, admin support accommodation etc have to be paid for like any other tenant. And airports are not cheap accommodation providers. I know from professional experience. Sometimes up to 20 times the local commercial rental rates.

There is also legislation that provides special immigration facilities in the UK. So when Concorde operated, BA purchased 2 dedicated desks at immigration to ensure that their passengers passed through quickly. No matter how long the normal queues were.

There is no UK statutory requirement to provide US immigration authorities with facilities. It’s an entirely commercial arrangement between the airport and the US authorities. But common sense tells you no airport is ever going to commit to cover all US costs. Training, pensions, litigation, recruitment, uniforms, travel & subsistence, procurement, and so on. So the US Government will always be picking up major costs. They will be looking for value for money, and won’t be interested in airports with few or precarious services to the US.

I wasn't suggesting that the airports are obliged to pay US by UK law, I am saying that the US government expects them to pay. I doubt that extends to pensions and litigation but it's sufficient cost to put off every interested airport in Europe apart from Dublin and Shannon that are uniquely located to make it financially worthwhile. The Canadian pre clearance locations have huge economy of scale. The other locations are Abu Dhabi and three tax havens...

 

[AlastairFraser]

BA1 and 2 don't have to use LCY, the Concorde flights left from Heathrow. Plus if the flight will be far quicker, who cares about clearance on landing and possible queues at Heathrow T5?

It matters westbound, the appeal of paying for a premium supersonic service is going to be limited if you land into a crowded JFK immigration, or other major US airport with issues. A possible solution is Heathrow to Shannon - 30 min stop - then land as domestic at the US end, but that still doesn't solve the Heathrow experience not being amazing.

 

[signed]

cost to put off every interested airport in Europe apart from Dublin and Shannon

And Brussels (they have signed), which is extremely weird)

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't think that Dublin or Shannon are that much nearer for it to be a significant difference. The thing with Manchester is that it has the potential to take a huge chunk of the big UK-US market, at a lower cost than Heathrow does. We'll see if it becomes viable at some point. Maybe EMA would be a better option for the central location, potential to grow and lower expansion costs.

Whilst there is a big UK-US market, a significant minority of it is transfer passengers from all over the world changing at LHR. Thats not easily going to shift to Manchester, and neither are the majority of the people who are not transferring.

Besides, savvy travellers to the US are increasingly using Global Entry - pretty much everyone I know who has to go there more than once a year does this now and it makes US immigration a non event.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Whilst there is a big UK-US market, a significant minority of it is transfer passengers from all over the world changing at LHR. Thats not easily going to shift to Manchester, and neither are the majority of the people who are not transferring.

While it is of course true that those connecting at Heathrow will not shift, there is still a large residual domestic market to attract!

Perhaps it would need an airport that is closer to the centre of population, and where slots could be offered at a cheaper rate to attract enough routes to justify a UK pilot of the preclearance plan (e.g. East Midlands Airport, as I suggested, or perhaps Birmingham because it has probably the best long distance rail links of any UK airport).

 

[Bald Rick]

While it is of course true that those connecting at Heathrow will not shift, there is still a large residual domestic market to attract!

There is, and it is two way. And like it or not, a significant majority of both markets is in the south eastern quarter of the country, for which Heathrow is far better suited (and siteed) than Manchester. More so for US visitors.

 

[AlastairFraser]

There is, and it is two way. And like it or not, a significant majority of both markets is in the south eastern quarter of the country, for which Heathrow is far better suited (and siteed) than Manchester. More so for US visitors.

I'm sure a preclearance facility in the SE would be great, but creating the space needed and the logistics of setting it up at a London airport means setting a preclearance facility in the SE is going to be very steep! Unless you're proposing using Stansted or London Southend ( ) for it...

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm sure a preclearance facility in the SE would be great, but creating the space needed and the logistics of setting it up at a London airport means setting a preclearance facility in the SE is going to be very steep! Unless you're proposing using Stansted or London Southend ( ) for it...

Loads of space at Heathrow. Especially when T2 is finished (one day).

Manchester’s problem is that there isn’t enough ‘local‘ demand. It currently has only 3 or 4 daily flights to the US - New York and Orlando, with flights to Atlanta and Houston a couple of times a week.

 

[Chester1]

Manchester’s problem is that there isn’t enough ‘local‘ demand. It currently has only 3 or 4 daily flights to the US - New York and Orlando, with flights to Atlanta and Houston a couple of times a week.

There are fewer flights from Manchester to North America than there were before the pandemic. The introduction of the A321 XLR could be a bigger deal for Manchester Airport than pre clearance would. I would rather fly direct and go through border controls on arrival in the US than fly to London or Dublin and change there but arrive as a domestic passenger.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Loads of space at Heathrow. Especially when T2 is finished (one day).

Manchester’s problem is that there isn’t enough ‘local‘ demand. It currently has only 3 or 4 daily flights to the US - New York and Orlando, with flights to Atlanta and Houston a couple of times a week.

Enough space to fit a preclearance facility that would fit all the US passengers through it? How much is this going to cost?
I agree that Manchester doesn't necessarily have enough local demand, hence my idea to choose an airport closer to the UK centre of population.

Birmingham has the large West Mids conurbation on its doorstep, and the airport is within 2.5hrs drive of Greater London, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, the Bristol metropolitan area, South East Wales, and the large urban areas of W + S Yorkshire. Not to mention the many intercity, regional and local destinations available from the connected rail station - Heathrow only has the HeX and Crossrail.

 

[ChrisP99]

I have to travel to Boston semi-frequently for my job and it shocks me that MAN doesn't have any flights there. Taking an EMR to STP, tube to Paddington and then the Heathrow Express is an annoying journey.

I was on a JetBlue A321 LR last Friday from BOS - LHR. Beautiful aircraft (Only for my journey to be ruined by the distruption at Loughborough and my train home cancelled, but that's off-topic).

Agreed that Global Entry is the way to go if you have a UK passport - I am from Northern Ireland and have always went to the US via Dublin but since moving to GB it's too much hassle to connect and I would rather get the train than fly.

 

[Chester1]

I have to travel to Boston semi-frequently for my job and it shocks me that MAN doesn't have any flights there. Taking an EMR to STP, tube to Paddington and then the Heathrow Express is an annoying journey.

I was on a JetBlue A321 LR last Friday from BOS - LHR. Beautiful aircraft (Only for my journey to be ruined by the distruption at Loughborough and my train home cancelled, but that's off-topic).

Agreed that Global Entry is the way to go if you have a UK passport - I am from Northern Ireland and have always went to the US via Dublin but since moving to GB it's too much hassle to connect and I would rather get the train than fly.

A lot of North America flights at Manchester never returned after the pandemic. We are starting to approach a situation of Manchester being better connected to China than the US (it has flights to Beijing, Shangai and Hong Kong). The lack of services to American west coast is understandable until a large number of A321 XLRs are in service but there are plenty of narrow body planes available for east coast services like Manchester-Boston, indicating they are probably just not profitable.

 

[camflyer]

Enough space to fit a preclearance facility that would fit all the US passengers through it? How much is this going to cost?
I agree that Manchester doesn't necessarily have enough local demand, hence my idea to choose an airport closer to the UK centre of population.

Birmingham has the large West Mids conurbation on its doorstep, and the airport is within 2.5hrs drive of Greater London, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, the Bristol metropolitan area, South East Wales, and the large urban areas of W + S Yorkshire. Not to mention the many intercity, regional and local destinations available from the connected rail station - Heathrow only has the HeX and Crossrail.

I suppose once HS2 is complete then Birmingham will become a more attractive airport for flights to/from the US

 

[AlastairFraser]

I suppose once HS2 is complete then Birmingham will become a more attractive airport for flights to/from the US

Even without HS2, it's a lot more centrally located than Heathrow and the preclearance incentive would probably tip it over the edge.

 

[Dfatcontroller]

Even without HS2, it's a lot more centrally located than Heathrow and the preclearance incentive would probably tip it over the edge.

Birmingham Airport would require a LOT of work to bring it up to any kind of standard.
Travelled through there recently and the place is a riot! Both departures and arrivals/immigration.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Birmingham Airport would require a LOT of work to bring it up to any kind of standard.
Travelled through there recently and the place is a riot! Both departures and arrivals/immigration.

But that work would be a lot cheaper than anywhere than in the London area (and the pre-built intercity connections + those to be added soon can't be ignored either).

 

[Bald Rick]

But that work would be a lot cheaper than anywhere than in the London area (and the pre-built intercity connections + those to be added soon can't be ignored either).

Would it?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Would it?

The inflated costs of recent London infrastructure projects (the Elizabeth Line, HS2 to Euston) suggests so.

 

[Bald Rick]

The inflated costs of recent London infrastructure projects (the Elizabeth Line, HS2 to Euston) suggests so.

Its not just London.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Its not just London.

It isn't just London, but Birmingham Airport has the advantage of a lot of free space to expand close to the single terminal (especially if you merge two car parks into a larger multistorey). Where would you do that at Heathrow? Expand T4 or build more space at T5? All terminals are miles away from intercity terminals.

 

[Bald Rick]

It isn't just London, but Birmingham Airport has the advantage of a lot of free space to expand close to the single terminal (especially if you merge two car parks into a larger multistorey). Where would you do that at Heathrow? Expand T4 or build more space at T5? All terminals are miles away from intercity terminals.

Heathrow East, ie the T2 extension, as planned (the extension, not pre clearance)