Edinburgh Airport announces £500million investment plan

[Cloud Strife]

It doesn't drive demand, but being the only GB preclearance facility would incentivise a massive uplift in departures, which in turn would require more runway capacity.

Runway capacity isn't really that big a problem. Stansted think they can reach 51 million with a single runway, and Edinburgh could extend the runway if needs be.

The problem is the lack of terminal capacity. Any preclearance facility can only be used for US flights, and it's not an ideal use of airport space. It doesn't matter so much in Dublin because they've got plenty of underused gates, but this isn't the case in Edinburgh.

 

[signed]

If pre-clearance from Scotland became reality then the airport that should be used is Prestwick - it was specifically built for transatlantic flights as it basically never gets shut down by bad weather.

It would be faster and probably cheaper for people to just fly to Dublin for preclearance than trekking from Edinburgh to Prestwick

And, if you self-connect there, you avoid UK Air Passenger Duty as well

Where Pre-Clearance is needed but will never happen is Heathrow

 

[AlterEgo]

It doesn't drive demand, but being the only GB preclearance facility would incentivise a massive uplift in departures, which in turn would require more runway capacity.

Preclearance doesn't drive demand, it just makes arriving in the US easier. People aren't going to schlep all the way to Edinburgh for the privilege of avoiding a queue which in my experience is usually in the region of 30 minutes (and frequently much shorter!)

We do have some precedent for services that arrive in the US as domestic - e.g. the BA flight all business class flight London City to JFK via Shannon, and approximately 500k-1 million passengers from the UK who use the UK preclearance at Dublin or Shannon a year. So, no, I can't evidence my earlier claim, but we can see that it would be a popular proposition.

Those passengers leave the UK from convenient airports like London Heathrow. Unless you're suggesting BA will stop off in Edinburgh on the way to JFK then this imagined massive increase in flights won't happen.

 

[Bald Rick]

We do have some precedent for services that arrive in the US as domestic - e.g. the BA flight all business class flight London City to JFK via Shannon, and approximately 500k-1 million passengers from the UK who use the UK preclearance at Dublin or Shannon a year. So, no, I can't evidence my earlier claim, but we can see that it would be a popular proposition.

Only for people within easy reach of Edinburgh. Otherwise, if you are predisposed to have a much longer journey time to get pre-clearnace, why wouldn’t you go via Dublin and avoid the long haul APD?

For that matter, why wouldn’t you just use MPC (Mobile Passport Control, which is free) at US immigration and fly direct, saving yourself at least three hours compared to flying to Edinburgh first and connecting? Last twice I’ve been to the US my wait time at immigration has been measured in seconds.

 

[najaB]

It doesn't drive demand, but being the only GB preclearance facility would incentivise a massive uplift in departures, which in turn would require more runway capacity.

It would obviously cause an increase, but I don't imagine it would be "massive". For example, I can't envisage passengers from London and the Southeast shifting their travel from Heathrow direct, or via-Dublin one-stops in preference to travelling to Edinburgh. And, in the event that there was a huge surge in demand for US flights, it would be perfectly reasonable to shift some of the lower-cost holiday departures to Glasgow, not to mention the unused capacity at Prestwick.

For that matter, why wouldn’t you just use MPC (Mobile Passport Control, which is free) at US immigration and fly direct, saving yourself at least three hours compared to flying to Edinburgh first and connecting?

MPC isn't the same as pre-clearance though. You still have to go through passport control in a US airport, which means that you're exposed to the same consequences if something goes awry as if you hadn't used it, whereas if you're rejected at a pre-clearance airport then you're just in Dublin (other airports are available) as opposed to finding yourself on a flight to Honduras.

 

[Bald Rick]

MPC isn't the same as pre-clearance though. You still have to go through passport control in a US airport, which means that you're exposed to the same consequences if something goes awry as if you hadn't used it, whereas if you're rejected at a pre-clearance airport then you're just in Dublin (other airports are available) as opposed to finding yourself on a flight to Honduras.

Well, yes, but I imagine the attraction of pre-clearance at Dubline, for example, is much more about avoiding the long queues at the US end than the risk of not getting cleared at all (which I guess for most people doesn’t cross their mind as an eventuality, although I accept it does for some).

And the attraction of Dublin for passengers from the UK is for those willing to trade a couple of hours in flight / connection time to save around £100 (economy) £250 (other classes) in APD as well as an easier arrival at the US end for some passengers. Edinburgh could only offer the latter part, not the cost saving.

Personally, I will continue to fly direct from Heathrow.

 

[najaB]

Well, yes, but I imagine the attraction of pre-clearance at Dubline, for example, is much more about avoiding the long queues at the US end than the risk of not getting cleared at all (whcih I guess for most people doesn’t cross their mind as an eventuality, although I accept it does for some).

It used to primarily be about the time savings on the US side, but in the current political environment I'm not alone in preferring to use a pre-clearance airport. It's not yet got as far as being company policy, but when I was booking my recent work trip to San Francisco my manager suggested looking at routes via a pre-clearance airport even if they cost a little bit more and I understand he's not the only one to have done so. And we're a US-headquartered company, and my manager is from the USA.

 

[Bald Rick]

It used to primarily be about the time savings on the US side, but in the current political environment I'm not alone in preferring to use a pre-clearance airport. It's not yet got as far as being company policy, but when I was booking my recent work trip to San Francisco my manager suggested looking at routes via a pre-clearance airport even if they cost a little bit more and I understand he's not the only one to have done so. And we're a US-headquartered company, and my manager is from the USA.

In which case, might be worth suggesting going via Abu Dhabi

More seriously, I’m sure there are some people looking at doing this, but given the volumes direct to the US from Heathrow (getting on for 18m last year), it must be a small minority. And one hopes that when the orange one foxtrots off stage, the political environment will ease somewhat.

 

[najaB]

More seriously, I’m sure there are some people looking at doing this, but given the volumes direct to the US from Heathrow (getting on for 18m last year), it must be a small minority. And one hopes that when the orange one foxtrots off stage, the political environment will ease somewhat.

I agree the numbers aren't huge, but they're also non-zero. Not that this would be enough reason by itself to invest in pre-clearance facilities but it won't hurt. Also, a lot of people ignore that it also helps to boost inwards tourism from the USA as well since onwards return connections within the USA are simplified as well.

 

[signed]

There were some rumors that the next PC airport was going to be Brussels, which still doesn’t make sense to me in non political term (well, Shannon is tiny and has PC but the circumstances are very very different)

The only place where it would make sense for PC is Heathrow, full stop. And it’s the airport where there won’t be anywhere to put PC gates.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Runway capacity isn't really that big a problem. Stansted think they can reach 51 million with a single runway, and Edinburgh could extend the runway if needs be.

Would they get planning permission for an extension though? Stansted's runway/taxiway system is far more modern and well designed too.

Preclearance doesn't drive demand, it just makes arriving in the US easier. People aren't going to schlep all the way to Edinburgh for the privilege of avoiding a queue which in my experience is usually in the region of 30 minutes (and frequently much shorter!)

It isn't really a schlep for large portions of this country though.
Large chunks of the North West have direct trains to Haymarket, then you can change to a direct tram (or the bus if you prefer) that is mostly reliable west of Haymarket.
Glasgow/west of Scotland also have plenty of direct services to Haymarket.
NE England/Yorkshire is a bit more complex, but connecting to the tram at Waverley or changing onto a Haymarket service isn't that much of a ballache.
The EDI airport experience is significantly preferable to Manchester (if Liverpool/Glasgow/Newcastle had year round flights to the US, they would be good alternatives - I wonder how many connect through Toronto in the winter if aiming for a northern US destination city).
Of course Heathrow, Gatwick or maybe even Birmingham would be preferable, but I don't think the former have the space or capacity, and Birmingham doesn't seem to attract many intercontinental flights, despite its excellent road and rail connections (especially with the coming of HS2).

Those passengers leave the UK from convenient airports like London Heathrow. Unless you're suggesting BA will stop off in Edinburgh on the way to JFK then this imagined massive increase in flights won't happen.

The ones I was talking about mostly leave regional airports like Birmingham/Manchester/Glasgow etc.
Most passengers from Heathrow fly direct, rather than connect in Dublin.

Only for people within easy reach of Edinburgh. Otherwise, if you are predisposed to have a much longer journey time to get pre-clearnace, why wouldn’t you go via Dublin and avoid the long haul APD?

APD is a point I hadn't considered to be fair, but if you live in parts of the Midlands, Yorkshire, North East, or North West, there isn't that much that difference travelling to Edinburgh vs travelling to Heathrow.

For that matter, why wouldn’t you just use MPC (Mobile Passport Control, which is free) at US immigration and fly direct, saving yourself at least three hours compared to flying to Edinburgh first and connecting? Last twice I’ve been to the US my wait time at immigration has been measured in seconds.

ICE based concerns!

It would obviously cause an increase, but I don't imagine it would be "massive". For example, I can't envisage passengers from London and the Southeast shifting their travel from Heathrow direct, or via-Dublin one-stops in preference to travelling to Edinburgh. And, in the event that there was a huge surge in demand for US flights, it would be perfectly reasonable to shift some of the lower-cost holiday departures to Glasgow, not to mention the unused capacity at Prestwick.

London + SE + Wales + East + SW is only about half the country's population though.
You could exclude half the Midlands and NI (for different reasons), but you still have quite a significant population willing to try pre clearance and not too far away.

Good to mention the unused capacity at Prestwick, perhaps Preclearance at Prestwick would be something to look at under a new US administration.
It already has a rail connection, plenty of runway capacity and the terminal could be upgraded with investment.
Road connections aren't too terrible, it would be a good opportunity for Ember to provide coach links if there was a reason to.
People have already mentioned the weather-based advantage too, and it has historical precedent as an airport providing transatlantic services from Scotland.

 

[AlterEgo]

The ones I was talking about mostly leave regional airports like Birmingham/Manchester/Glasgow etc.

Convenient ones yes. The nearest ones, yes.

Most passengers from Heathrow fly direct, rather than connect in Dublin.

You're telling me they won't spend two extra hours to avoid CBP? I think the value of preclearance is really overstated by many. Did Dublin turn into a hub so everyone could save maybe or maybe not standing in a line at JFK or the like? No.

 

[Bald Rick]

ICE based concerns!

But you’ll have them wherever you encounter them. The difference being that if you are refused entry in, say, Edinburgh, you are still in the UK. However, as I said upthread, this really isnt a concern for the vast majority of travellers between the UK and US.

London + SE + Wales + East + SW is only about half the country's population though.

Half the Population, yes, but not half of those making UK-US flights. In my experience, around half of the people on UK-US flights are either US citizens, or connecting from other countries in europe / middle east, or both; they could generally connect via Dublin but choose to use LHR.

I’m sorry but you’re firmly in dreamland if you think that preclearance at Edinburgh would attract more than perhaps 1m passengers a year, representing around 5-6 additional return flight pairs a day. And that is me being generous.

I don’t get the attraction of pre-clearance anyway, you still have to do it just before rather than after the flight! And as I said, with MPC it’s largely irrelevant anyway.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Convenient ones yes. The nearest ones, yes.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

You're telling me they won't spend two extra hours to avoid CBP? I think the value of preclearance is really overstated by many. Did Dublin turn into a hub so everyone could save maybe or maybe not standing in a line at JFK or the like? No.

No, it turned into a hub because Aer Lingus serves regional airports in the UK and RoI better than BA does!
But preclearance does heavily help their case - I'd argue it's more important in the case of Shannon.
Talk about expansion is all academic anyway at the moment, given the political situation in the US.

But you’ll have them wherever you encounter them. The difference being that if you are refused entry in, say, Edinburgh, you are still in the UK. However, as I said upthread, this really isnt a concern for the bast majority of travellers between the UM and US.

Well, as najab says, not being sent to El Salvador or Honduras is one of a range of relevant considerations for infrequent travellers to the US.
Of course frequent and business travellers will know how to play e.g. burner phones, local contacts etc., but, for your more casual holidaymaker or visiting friends and relatives traffic, preclearance is more relevant.

Half the Population, yes, but not half of those making UK-US flights. In my experience, around half of the people on UK-US flights are either US citizens, or connecting from other countries in europe / middle east, or both; they could generally connect via Dublin but choose to use LHR.

I’m sorry but you’re firmly in dreamland if you think that preclearance at Edinburgh would attract more than perhaps 1m passengers a year, representing around 5-6 additional return flight pairs a day.

I don’t get the attraction of pre-clearance anyway, you still have to do it just before rather than after the flight! And as I said, with MPC it’s largely irrelevant anyway.

Well, there's knowing that you can enter, knowing that you can exit the airport without further formalities (especially important if connecting onwards by land, and somewhat relevant to air connections, given the layout of a lot of North American airports), and the general enhanced standard of current pre-clearance airports (bar some of the larger Canadian ones).

 

[Bald Rick]

Well, as najab says, not being sent to El Salvador or Honduras is one of a range of relevant considerations for infrequent travellers to the US.

Of course frequent and business travellers will know how to play e.g. burner phones, local contacts etc., but, for your more casual holidaymaker or visiting friends and relatives traffic, preclearance is more relevant.

It really isn’t an issue for almost everyone, and I’d be surprised if more than 1% of travellers to the US from the UK even think about it. More people fly out of Heathrow to the US than fly out of Edinburgh to everywhere.

And burner phones? This is the US we’re talking about, not N Korea!


Can I ask when you last went to the US, and whether you considered travelling via Dublin?

 

[AlterEgo]

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

People use their most convenient airport. They don't massively care about preclearance.

No, it turned into a hub because Aer Lingus serves regional airports in the UK and RoI better than BA does!

Exactly.

Well, as najab says, not being sent to El Salvador or Honduras is one of a range of relevant considerations for infrequent travellers to the US.
Of course frequent and business travellers will know how to play e.g. burner phones, local contacts etc

No offence but this is detached from reality. This isn't a defence of the current malign regime there but as a frequent traveller you just turn up and get admitted. I would read less news if I were you.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 22:21 ==

Half the Population, yes, but not half of those making UK-US flights. In my experience, around half of the people on UK-US flights are either US citizens, or connecting from other countries in europe / middle east, or both; they could generally connect via Dublin but choose to use LHR.

Middle East passengers can also use Abu Dhabi.

 

[najaB]

Good to mention the unused capacity at Prestwick, perhaps Preclearance at Prestwick would be something to look at under a new US administration.
It already has a rail connection, plenty of runway capacity and the terminal could be upgraded with investment.
Road connections aren't too terrible, it would be a good opportunity for Ember to provide coach links if there was a reason to.
People have already mentioned the weather-based advantage too, and it has historical precedent as an airport providing transatlantic services from Scotland.

The only issue is that Prestwick is pretty much exactly not where people want to be.

No offence but this is detached from reality. This isn't a defence of the current malign regime there but as a frequent traveller you just turn up and get admitted. I would read less news if I were you

For the majority of people, most of the time, yes. And the "flight to Honduras" was a bit of an exaggeration, but there have been and continue to be instances of people getting caught up in immigration issues who really shouldn't have.

The fact that there have been multiple instances of Green Card holders (and US citizens!) being held at the airport for days or even sent to detention centres is enough to demonstrate that the risk is non-zero.

 

[AlterEgo]

For the majority of people, most of the time, yes. And the "flight to Honduras" was a bit of an exaggeration, but there have been and continue to be instances of people getting caught up in immigration issues who really shouldn't have.

The fact that there have been multiple instances of Green Card holders (and US citizens!) being held at the airport for days or even sent to detention centres is enough to demonstrate that the risk is non-zero.

But those are edge cases, and rare enough to make the news. The risk is not zero, but it is not going to make a commercial argument for preclearance.

 

[najaB]

But those are edge cases, and rare enough to make the news. The risk is not zero, but it is not going to make a commercial argument for preclearance.

I never claimed that it did.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The only issue is that Prestwick is pretty much exactly not where people want to be.

Indeed, but it would also be the cheapest viable airport to build a preclearance hub in pretty much the entire country.
The Scottish Government may even be amenable to subsidising it if a different US administration comes into play.

For the majority of people, most of the time, yes. And the "flight to Honduras" was a bit of an exaggeration, but there have been and continue to be instances of people getting caught up in immigration issues who really shouldn't have.

The fact that there have been multiple instances of Green Card holders (and US citizens!) being held at the airport for days or even sent to detention centres is enough to demonstrate that the risk is non-zero.

Precisely.
Travel on a tourism visa to America should be as simple as any other Anglosphere or most other European countries, but any sort of risk will put some off, no matter what the actual numbers of those being detained are.

People use their most convenient airport. They don't massively care about preclearance.

Well, a lot of people only use Heathrow because of price. Preclearance isn't the biggest draw, but there are other considerations involved in choice of airports, not necessarily the most convenient as such.

And burner phones? This is the US we’re talking about, not N Korea!

It is a consideration for many business travellers now:

Keith Serry was set to bring a show to New York City’s Fringe festival this year, but pulled the plug a few weeks out. After 35 years of traveling to the United States, he says he no longer feels safe making the trip.

“The fact that we’re being evaluated for our opinions entering a country that, at least until very recently, purported to be an example of democracy. Yeah, these are things that make me highly uncomfortable,” said Serry, a Canadian performer and attorney.


“You’re left thinking that you don’t want to leave evidence of ‘bad opinions’ on your person.”

Serry is among a substantial cohort of foreign nationals reconsidering travel to the US under the Trump administration, after troubling reports of visitors facing intense scrutiny and detention on arrival.
In March, a French scientist who had been critical of Donald Trump was refused entry to the US after his phone was searched. An Australian writer who was detained and denied entry in June said he was initially grilled about his articles on pro-Palestinian protests, and then watched as a border agent probed even the most personal images on his phone. He was told the search uncovered evidence of past drug use, which he had not acknowledged on his visa waiver application, leading to his rejection. German, British and other European tourists have also been detained and sent home.

More than a dozen countries have updated their travel guidance to the US. In Australia and Canada, government advisories were changed to specifically mention the potential for electronic device searches.

On the advice of various experts, people are locking down social media, deleting photos and private messages, removing facial recognition, or even traveling with “burner” phones to protect themselves.

In Canada, multiple public institutions have urged employees to avoid travel to the US, and at least one reportedly told staff to leave their usual devices at home and bring a second device with limited personal information instead.

Can I ask when you last went to the US, and whether you considered travelling via Dublin?

I have never been, and have no plans to, but I see the value of a preclearance facility for economic development and seamless travel for those who have to or desire to.

 

[najaB]

Can I ask when you last went to the US, and whether you considered travelling via Dublin?

I know that this question wasn't aimed at me, but my last trip to the USA was via Toronto, specifically so I could use the pre-clearance facilities there. The previous trip was also via Canada, though in that case I crossed the border by land.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have never been, and have no plans to, but I see the value of a preclearance facility for economic development and seamless travel for those who have to or desire to.

But it’s not seamless travel. Pre Clearance is still going through US Immigration, just at the start of the trip rather than the end.

For my sins, I travel to the US a fair bit, and know / speak to lots of people who do the same. None of whom have any inclination to use Dublin / Shannon for pre clearance. In fact, thinking about it, I don’t know anyone who has done it, save for one person who did it by default on BA1 out of City (they wanted to fly that route, not for the pre-clearance, but for the airframe).

Going via Dublin is just extra faff to save a few quid, and Edinburgh wouldn’t even do that. If anything, it would be more expensive to route via Edinburgh, and of course hours longer. Where’s the benefit?

It is a consideration for many business travellers now:

It really isn’t. A couple of extreme examples do not represent the views of the ‘many’ when there are tens of thousands of business travellers travelling between the UK and US daily. Nor the views of the tens of thousands of non-business travellers.

Middle East passengers can also use Abu Dhabi.

Indeed so. And many do. But some come via Heathrow, at least given by the flight codes of my last few TA flights and some of the people I spoke to! (and no doubt others route via Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Istanbul etc)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 23:04 ==

I know that this question wasn't aimed at me, but my last trip to the USA was via Toronto, specifically so I could use the pre-clearance facilities there. The previous trip was also via Canada, though in that case I crossed the border by land.

Fair enough, and I’m sure you have good reasons, but as I’ve said in other posts it’s not a consideration for the vast majority of UK to US travellers. If it was, Heathrow would see rather fewer than 18m passengers to/from the US on direct flights.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is a consideration for many business travellers now

It really isn't. You need to move in circles where you know some of these business travellers (most of the serious ones have Global Entry). I could find a few people to tell me they think there's a teapot orbiting the Earth if I had a message on a news site saying "hey email me if you want to talk about your belief in orbiting teapots and want to be in the paper", it wouldn't mean "many people think that".

How many cases are cited in that article? How many wrongful detentions do you think our own Border Force make a year?

Read less news. If you think you're that much at risk in the US, don't go.

I have never been, and have no plans to, but I see the value of a preclearance facility for economic development and seamless travel for those who have to or desire to.

It doesn't really move the dial much. That's one of the reasons Edinburgh isn't going to get it any time soon. The other is that we don't even have a treaty signed to allow it, and one seems unlikely to materialise even without the orange man. Ireland is the only country in Europe to have it and it isn't turning their airports into powerhouses.

Would it be nice to have a UK airport with preclearance? Yeah sure I guess. Would it turn Edinburgh into some sort of hub? No. You might get a few extra flights a day.

 

[AlastairFraser]

But it’s not seamless travel. Pre Clearance is still going through US Immigration, just at the start of the trip rather than the end.

For my sins, I travel to the US a fair bit, and know / speak to lots of people who do the same. None of whom have any inclination to use Dublin / Shannon for pre clearance. In fact, thinking about it, I don’t know anyone who has done it, save for one person who did it by default on BA1 out of City (they wanted to fly that route, not for the pre-clearance, but for the airframe).

Going via Dublin is just extra faff to save a few quid, and Edinburgh wouldn’t even do that. If anything, it would be more expensive to route via Edinburgh, and of course hours longer. Where’s the benefit?

US immigration officers that are commonly thought to be more lenient on foreign soil.
Fair enough regarding your friends, but 1 million+ think differently every year (tbf that is a small fraction of overall passenger numbers, but a GB preclearance facility that you could drive or take the train to would attract significantly more, in my humble opinion).

And my other point was that, although my personal preference for preclearance facilities in GB would be Birmingham (for the connectivity and growth prospects) or Prestwick (because it would be the cheapest in the country, bar building one at somewhere like East Midlands hahaha), I can acknowledge Edinburgh is equidistant to Heathrow for a large portion of the country.
Therefore, Heathrow isn't necessarily always preferable over another airport for US departures, especially if that other airport has advantages such as e.g. preclearance.

It really isn’t. A couple of extreme examples do not represent the views of the ‘many’ when there are tens of thousands of business travellers travelling between the UK and US daily. Nor the views of the tens of thousands of non-business travellers.

It's large businesses and institutions that are changing their travel policies now, not just a few individuals. That's the real difference.

It really isn't. You need to move in circles where you know some of these business travellers (most of the serious ones have Global Entry). I could find a few people to tell me they think there's a teapot orbiting the Earth if I had a message on a news site saying "hey email me if you want to talk about your belief in orbiting teapots and want to be in the paper", it wouldn't mean "many people think that".

Less than 5% of British travellers to the US hold Global Entry though, and a much higher proportion of the 18 million annual travellers will be travelling on business.

How many cases are cited in that article?

A few, but that's enough to make plenty of people reconsider.

How many wrongful detentions do you think our own Border Force make a year?

None, frankly. Maybe a few a decade at worst.

The other is that we don't even have a treaty signed to allow it, and one seems unlikely to materialise even without the orange man. Ireland is the only country in Europe to have it and it isn't turning their airports into powerhouses.

This is the more plausible explanation, although I would argue that a significant part of Dublin's success is based on the North American route network of Aer Lingus, and that in turn is massively bolstered by preclearance.

Would it be nice to have a UK airport with preclearance? Yeah sure I guess. Would it turn Edinburgh into some sort of hub? No. You might get a few extra flights a day.

I disagree on this, but I don't think any of us could say for sure unless a facility was actually opened.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's large businesses and institutions that are changing their travel policies now, not just a few individuals. That's the real difference.

They aren't changing policies to go via Dublin, one thing's for sure. Aer Lingus is in the toilet.

None, frankly. Maybe a few a decade at worst.

A few a decade?? You think UK Border Force improperly detain people less than once a year?

This is the more plausible explanation, although I would argue that a significant part of Dublin's success is based on the North American route network of Aer Lingus, and that in turn is massively bolstered by preclearance.

That's Aer Lingus which has some of the lowest transatlantic occupancy rates of any European carrier. Dublin by the way, at its peak, has only processed about 1.7m preclearance passengers a year despite being the only hub airport in Europe with this facility.

I disagree on this, but I don't think any of us could say for sure unless a facility was actually opened.

Not even Edinburgh Airport think this because they haven't even built in passive provision to accommodate preclearance. I'm sorry but the idea is detached from the reality of how airports and airlines actually operate. There will be no "massive uplift in flights".

 

[najaB]

A few a decade?? You think UK Border Force improperly detain people less than once a year?

That depends entirely on what "detain" means in this context. If it means "take to the little room and hold for a few hours while questioning" then it almost certainly happens multiple times a day at pretty much every airport.

If it means "disappear into a for-profit detention centre on the other side of the country where they are held for weeks or months" then yes, definitely less than once a year (as in "never").

To give a second-hand description of the difference in policy and approach taken by our Border Force vs the US Customs and Border Protection: I was friends with a Mexican couple who were backpacking across Europe, supporting themselves by doing under-the-radar hospitality jobs as young people have done for ages. Totally illegal, but completely accepted.

They got stopped when going from Scotland to Ireland and were rejected by the Irish border police, and so had to return to the UK. When they arrived at Glasgow the Border Force told them that, since they had been denied by Ireland they would also be denied by the UK and so they were held in detention overnight while they figured out what to do with them. The next day they were given the opportunity to book their own flights out of the UK rather than being deported. Since the first flights that they could get weren't for three or four days the Border Force confiscated their passports and said that they were were free to visit friends in Scotland as long as they reported to the police station every night. And they stuck to the arrangement and left on their flight to Mexico. Quite civilised.

Had this been the USA under the current administration they would have disappeared into the system and we probably still wouldn't know where they were.

 

[Bald Rick]

US immigration officers that are commonly thought to be more lenient on foreign soil.

Commonly thought by who?

Fair enough regarding your friends, but 1 million+ think differently every year

If you mean the 1m+ (actually about 3m) who use preclearance in Ireland, there’s a reason for that, and that’s because they are starting their journey in Ireland.

I disagree on this, but I don't think any of us could say for sure unless a facility was actually opened.

I doubt that any of us work in airport terminal management (albeit I do know a few people who do, or have done). However one thing that is for sure is that those who do manage airport terminals would do a lot of market research, assessment and costing before deciding to progress any such proposal. They will have a very good idea of its viability. They are certainly not going to drop tens of millions on the off chance based on a few opinions.

I would argue that a significant part of Dublin's success is based on the North American route network of Aer Lingus, and that in turn is massively bolstered by preclearance.

I disagree. Others will know better, but Aer Lingus’ network is built as it is because of the historical links between the US and Ireland. Hard data is a little hard to come by, but from what I’ve found, Dublin’s success is about its European network - almost 90% of Dublin passengers are to/from Europe. Only 10% are to/from the US, and Aer Lingus carries around 2/3rds of them. Even if Dublin stopped serving the US tomorrow, it would still be a 33m pax pa airport. (And although I have no data, it is very likely that a sizeable majority of those flying between the US and Dublin are doing so as visitors to Dublin or Ireland residents visiting the US)

Compare that to Heathrow, where 21% of all passengers are to/from the US, i.e. even without preclearance, the proportion of passengers to the US from Heathrow is twice as high as from Dublin.

(All stats from UK CAA data, or Ireland’s Central Statistics Office).

 

[najaB]

Commonly thought by who?

Unsurprisingly CBP doesn't publish statistics, but my personal experience (based on extremely limited data) was that they definitely seemed to be processing the queue faster.

 

[AlterEgo]

That depends entirely on what "detain" means in this context. If it means "take to the little room and hold for a few hours while questioning" then it almost certainly happens multiple times a day at pretty much every airport.

If it means "disappear into a for-profit detention centre on the other side of the country where they are held for weeks or months" then yes, definitely less than once a year (as in "never").

The whole "disappeared to Latin America or the other side of the country" is not happening at US airports. What you are describing there is people lifted off the street by ICE thugs who are already in the US unlawfully (and sometimes lawfully!!).

We have dozens of people at any one time in places like Colnbrook or Harmondsworth who have been detained at Heathrow Airport with, allegedly, no right to enter. Some of those people will have been wrongly detained, and some of them are held for days or even weeks while their cases are sorted and until they can be deported. There is no legal limit on the detention and you are not entitled to bail whatsoever until your eighth day and even then it will not be guaranteed.

That's basically what will happen to you at JFK; if they deem you inadmissible you are detained and sent back. For you, living in the UK, with I assume a British passport and a straightforward case it'll probably take a few hours, maybe an overnight stay at most at the airport.

Here's probably the most notable case of ours to show it does happen - an elderly Canadian visitor detained at the border who died in handcuffs in one of our immigration removal centres. https://www.channel4.com/news/left-to-die-in-british-detention-who-was-alois-dvorzac - and you'd never have found out about it other than someone read a line in a prison inspection report.

As for the US, the risk is not at the border. The risk is walking while black, brown or Latino on the street where people feel empowered to report you to ICE's tuppeny brownshirts, and there are vastly fewer safeguards there compared to at the border manned by CBP.

Still, none of this moves the dial on Edinburgh preclearance, which the airport has decided will not be a priority for several reasons.

 

[najaB]

The whole "disappeared to Latin America or the other side of the country" is not happening at US airports.

Factually false. There have been multiple instances of people arriving at US airports and ending up in detention centres.

Here is one (not even the one I was thinking of):

Fabian Schmidt sometimes wakes up afraid in the middle of the night, briefly forgetting he’s no longer at the maximum security prison where he spent two months last year.

Schmidt, a German green card holder who moved to the United States as a teenager in 2007 and now lives in Nashua, was detained by immigration officials at Boston Logan Airport last year. He spent two months jailed in Rhode Island for what his lawyer calls a paperwork issue involving a decade-old misdemeanor.

Fabian Schmidt chose America long ago. A year after getting trapped in ICE’s net, he still does.

Fabian Schmidt, a German green card holder who moved to the United States as a teenager in 2007 and now lives in Nashua, was detained by immigration officials at Boston Logan Airport last year.

www.nhpr.org

Admittedly not the other side of the country, but held for two months in a different state.