Aviation Discussion

[anme]

Just on this clearance topic, I am considering a trip to the US in 2018 and will need to get a visa, I heard that you can get through a lot quicker with these than with an ETSA, but is this only at certain airports?

When we arrived at Phoenix for example, terribly long queues but didn't see a fast-track option for people with visas.

Don't get a visa just to reduce waiting time at the airport. It might or might not save some queuing and will certainly take a lot more time, money and effort overall. And as I wrote above, the entry process for those with an ESTA is improving at many airports.

Of course, you might need a visa for other reasons.

 

[Techniquest]

Allow me to share my experience of getting an ESTA last year.

I had never been to the USA before and had not known it was an option until research revealed it when looking up visas. We expected it to be a long drawn-out procedure but the online form took only a matter of minutes. I don't recall what details it asks for, but you will need your passport to hand. The questions were all easy to answer, and the cost was less than £10 from memory by the time you included international transaction fees.

I expected a long wait for it to come through, but it was almost instant and, importantly, it lasts for 2 years from the date of issue. Obviously you'll need to figure out if it applies to you if your trip is more than just tourism.

So to the arrivals process. As we were out of the plane pretty quickly, we were near the front of the passport control queue. Passport shown, and as it was an e-passport (the ones with a microchip thing in them) it also had the ESTA details on it. We still took a paper copy with us just in case, which I would recommend doing if only for peace of mind. A few questions asked about the purpose of the visit and a fingerprint scan, before we knew it we were off to baggage reclaim. Probably within 20 minutes of getting off the plane at JFK. If we'd been at the back it may have been a different matter of course, as the queue would have been longer on a fully loaded 787-9!

Would a full-blown visa have made things quicker? I seriously doubt it! Would we have wasted money? Definitely!

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Unfortunately a recent holiday in Iran and impending trip to Iraq will give me some visas that preclude the use of an ESTA. I am aware the visa process is far from simple, but it is my only option that doesn't involve "losing" my passport to get a nice clean one!

 

[miami]

The queues depends greatly on the time of day, and the day of week. I've entered at New York JFK on a friday evening and been pretty much the only non-american in the queue, so got through in a few minutes. Other times at the same airport I've been queueing for an hour. On the other hand going into Washington Dulles often takes >90 minutes, although once there wasn't a queue at all. I went into Philidelphia once, first off the plane, not a single person in any of the queues, through in about 60 seconds, no queue at customs either, and as I was hand luggage only it was a breeze. Not sure how automated machines speed up things as I havent been for a couple of years.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Only ever had the joy of VC-10's, Tridents and Concorde from the outside. Loved the sound of the Trident starting up, a really unusual sound. Concorde and VC-10's were beasts. Noise galore. Also loved TU-154's.

Oh... err... were you all talking about the noise from inside? Ah... I was talking about from outside! Still... I seem to have sparked a few "outside" memories for several posters...

 

[thejuggler]

The noise from a BAC1 11 taking off on the short runway on the old Liverpool airport was some sound.

I lived in Luton during the early days of Ryanair when the 1-11 was their aircraft of choice, noise isn't the word!

Also flew on a BA 1-11 from Birmingham to Faro in the mid 80s. My last cockpit visit.

Compared to those modern aircraft are silent!

 

[Butts]

VC10 was certainly a beast taking off - those Rolls Royce Conway Engines would give todays "Tree Huggers" a coronary

 

[atillathehunn]

Oh... err... were you all talking about the noise from inside? Ah... I was talking about from outside! Still... I seem to have sparked a few "outside" memories for several posters...

Some of us didn't have the luxury, Peter!

I really didn't mean to start a fight over royalty with a throw-away comment on Heathrow not being the most fantastic airport. It's only my opinion, I just don't find the transfer process pleasant. I defer to those who who spend more time there than I. I think, though, my point stands that it's not an airport worth a special trip to for flying to Norway when there are more convenient options available.

As for the Ethiopian comment - again another throw-away comment that I couldn't remember the source for. I'd just happened to read somewhere that they were considering it. If they have a very sweet deal from the Irish (though a little surprised they don't use pre-check) then they of course won't go anywhere.

 

[anme]

I was surprised by how noisy the 787 is. Much louder than, say, an A340, and not a pleasant noise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I really didn't mean to start a fight over royalty with a throw-away comment on Heathrow not being the most fantastic airport. It's only my opinion, I just don't find the transfer process pleasant. I defer to those who who spend more time there than I. I think, though, my point stands that it's not an airport worth a special trip to for flying to Norway when there are more convenient options available.

I don't think any airport is worth a special trip when more convenient options are available. Certainly the transfer process at Heathrow is bad, but it depends on the terminal. Terminal 5 to terminal 5 is the worst, I think, because of the fundamental design mistake of allowing domestic and international passengers to mix. For transfers they have to be temporarily separated again involving sometimes very long queues. If you're very lucky, T5/T5 transfers are less painful if you arrive and depart from B or C buildings, as you can avoid going to the main terminal.

I have found transferring between other terminals at Heathrow to not be so bad, but you are sometimes reliant on sporadic airside bus services between terminals.

 

[atillathehunn]

I was surprised by how noisy the 787 is. Much louder than, say, an A340, and not a pleasant noise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I don't think any airport is worth a special trip when more convenient options are available. Certainly the transfer process at Heathrow is bad, but it depends on the terminal. Terminal 5 to terminal 5 is the worst, I think, because of the fundamental design mistake of allowing domestic and international passengers to mix. For transfers they have to be temporarily separated again involving sometimes very long queues. If you're very lucky, T5/T5 transfers are less painful if you arrive and depart from B or C buildings, as you can avoid going to the main terminal.

I have found transferring between other terminals at Heathrow to not be so bad, but you are sometimes reliant on sporadic airside bus services between terminals.

That's why I said go to the most convenient option...

Domestic -> international transfer at LHR is the only concession to the airport I'll make. It's the most straight forward option they have.

T5 to T3 isn't too bad, assuming you don't miss the airside bus that's inevitably just leaving. Still not great though.

The only highlight for the airport I can think of is that you can scratch some track for free on the HEX between terminals. Still leaves you with the bit to Airport Junction to do though.

787s are a bit whiny. A350 booked soon, let's see how that goes.

 

[anme]

787s are a bit whiny. A350 booked soon, let's see how that goes.

Enjoy the A350 - I didn't try one yet but I heard good things.

On the subject of aircraft noise, I remember being favourably impressed with the MD-11. Surprisingly quiet, at least towards the front. Are MD-11s still used on passenger services anywhere in the world?

 

[atillathehunn]

Enjoy the A350 - I didn't try one yet but I heard good things.

On the subject of aircraft noise, I remember being favourably impressed with the MD-11. Surprisingly quiet, at least towards the front. Are MD-11s still used on passenger services anywhere in the world?

So did I - I'm optimistic! 787 was a let down.

I believe nobody flies the MD-11 in passenger service anymore. There's quite a few doing cargo work round the world, but think no passenger flights.

 

[me123]

Allow me to share my experience of getting an ESTA last year...

My experience is pretty much that of Techniquest's.

The form is easy and I was approved immediately. That said, it is recommended to apply for an ESTA in advance to ensure that you are permitted to travel. If you are refused (usually because you fall foul of the eligibility criteria for an ESTA, but occasionally genuine and eligible travellers can be denied for other reasons, sometimes if someone with the same name is barred from traveling) you will need a visa to travel to the US, so it's worth leaving time to ensure you can get an appointment in the rare case that you may need it.

Of course, Tim R-T-C needs a visa. I've not had to go to London for a visa interview, but plan ahead and allow plenty of time to get the visa. You should be able to get it well in advance. Expect extensive questioning about your reasons for visiting Iraq and Iran.

Your ESTA/Visa allows you entry at any US airport, or via preclearence at Dublin or Shannon (or elsewhere). FWIW, I highly recommend travel via Dublin - EI is a great airline, and transiting at Dublin allows you to clear immigration and arrive as a "domestic" flight - this means you won't be stuck in a long queue after a long flight!

I've always found the US immigration officers to be courteous and friendly, albeit thorough. I certainly wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of them, but I think he UK border force could learn a few things from them about basic courtesy. In spite of the horror stories you hear, I genuinely wouldn't be too worried about the immigration process itself when you get to your arrival airport. I don't think the visa process speeds things up - they'll still interrogate you on arrival, and even with the ESTA it was a few minutes max.

 

[Flying Phil]

The noise from a BAC1 11 taking off on the short runway on the old Liverpool airport was some sound.

Back in the early 70's we had to move up to Yorkshire and went house viewing between Leeds and Bradford at Yeadon. Whilst we were there was a heck of a noise and the house shook! The vendor said "Oh thats the BAC 1-11 taking off....."
We bought a house in Menston.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course, you might need a visa for other reasons.

It's worth noting that the guidelines have changed recently, reducing the number of types of "arrest" that are a bar to using ESTA compared with the previous VWP. Therefore if that situation applies to anyone reading, they may do well to re-read the T&Cs and may be able to avoid the need for a visa even if they did need one before.

In particular I recall that the confusing phrase "moral turpitude" has gone in favour of a more specific appraisal of offences/suspected offences that are a bar.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Allow me to share my experience of getting an ESTA last year.

I had never been to the USA before and had not known it was an option until research revealed it when looking up visas. We expected it to be a long drawn-out procedure but the online form took only a matter of minutes. I don't recall what details it asks for, but you will need your passport to hand. The questions were all easy to answer, and the cost was less than £10 from memory by the time you included international transaction fees.

It used to be free and a bit of green card (not a Green Card!) that you filled in on the plane. FWIW, I once got threatened with deportation for forgetting to sign said card - they don't take any prisoners!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So did I - I'm optimistic! 787 was a let down.

I think the big windows are the thing going for it (and the fact that allegedly when the electronic blinds are blanked you can still see out, just). The narrow seating (most airlines having gone for penny-pinching 3-3-3 layout) and typical Boeing crudeness and noise do point at Airbus being, as ever, a better choice.

 

[fowler9]

Oh... err... were you all talking about the noise from inside? Ah... I was talking about from outside! Still... I seem to have sparked a few "outside" memories for several posters...

It was a bit of a vague question to be honest. Ha ha. I did mean from outside but it kind of morphed in to being from inside. I love the sound of a 777 from either side at take off but on a 13 hour flight I found them a bit noisy. Just to be contrary the A340 doesn't make a great noise but in my opinion it looks amazing from the outside and is really nice to travel on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In general if I have a choice I will fly on an Airbus. This isn't some bias against Boeing because they are American. Just that a Chilean A340 was a much more pleasant experience than a BA 747 or 777. On the particular trip I have in mind the A340 was much more comfortable and quiet, the 2 long haul BA flights were noisy and my headrest was falling off on both aircraft, and the cabin crew were surly. I also flew on Qantas VH-OEB and the aircraft was in much better nick with excellent cabin crew to boot (It was no quieter than the BA 747 of course).

 

[anme]

I think the big windows are the thing going for it (and the fact that allegedly when the electronic blinds are blanked you can still see out, just).

That is true (that the windows on the 787 are still semi-transparent when blanked) and in my opinion is very cool and a real improvement. Everyone else I spoke to really hates them, however.

The narrow seating (most airlines having gone for penny-pinching 3-3-3 layout) and typical Boeing crudeness and noise do point at Airbus being, as ever, a better choice.

Yes - this is the worst thing about the 787 and is the reason I try to avoid them, and also 777s with ten-abreast seating.

 

[gsnedders]

Terminal 5 to terminal 5 is the worst, I think, because of the fundamental design mistake of allowing domestic and international passengers to mix. For transfers they have to be temporarily separated again involving sometimes very long queues. If you're very lucky, T5/T5 transfers are less painful if you arrive and depart from B or C buildings, as you can avoid going to the main terminal.

As far as I'm aware, it's a UK legal requirement that means that all departing passengers must have passed through security in the UK, hence it being so painful for most connections (international -> domestic is often better than international -> international in T5A, in my experience, because there's often a big queue skipped by going through the UK Border…).

 

[Bletchleyite]

As far as I'm aware, it's a UK legal requirement that means that all departing passengers must have passed through security in the UK, hence it being so painful for most connections (international -> domestic is often better than international -> international in T5A, in my experience, because there's often a big queue skipped by going through the UK Border…).

That's correct, the UK doesn't "trust" other countries' security (and, let's be fair, there have been quite a few recent incidents that would suggest that that is a good policy - or at least if there was shared trust it would be EU only). The only flights where you can (and often do) arrive straight into departures in the UK are UK domestic flights.

The mixing of domestic and international has nothing to do with it. The only thing that affects is the risk of someone illegally entering the UK in that way, and there are other mitigations to that, e.g. photographing those with domestic boarding cards at the entrance to security so there is no opportunity to swap boarding cards and thus enable an illegal entry into the UK.

The US of course is even stricter on this by not allowing airside transit without entering the US *at all*.

 

[anme]

The mixing of domestic and international has nothing to do with it.

The mixing of domestic and international passengers does have a significant affect at Heathrow terminal 5, because for transferring passengers it requires passengers to be separated and an additional check made. This happens before security, and the queue for this check (at least for international transfers) is often longer than the queue for security.

 

[atillathehunn]

I think the big windows are the thing going for it (and the fact that allegedly when the electronic blinds are blanked you can still see out, just). The narrow seating (most airlines having gone for penny-pinching 3-3-3 layout) and typical Boeing crudeness and noise do point at Airbus being, as ever, a better choice.

I think the improved air quality in another winner.

As has been often said, the 737 is a rough and ready piece of equipment. I don't particularly like them. I would much prefer a small Airbus series.

If the airlines had put better seating arrangements in the 787 I would have said that the superiority of Airbus over Boeing would possibly be called into question, but the airlines shot themselves in the foot.

 

[berneyarms]

I don't think any airport is worth a special trip when more convenient options are available. Certainly the transfer process at Heathrow is bad, but it depends on the terminal. Terminal 5 to terminal 5 is the worst, I think, because of the fundamental design mistake of allowing domestic and international passengers to mix. For transfers they have to be temporarily separated again involving sometimes very long queues. If you're very lucky, T5/T5 transfers are less painful if you arrive and depart from B or C buildings, as you can avoid going to the main terminal.

I have found transferring between other terminals at Heathrow to not be so bad, but you are sometimes reliant on sporadic airside bus services between terminals.

As someone who for years endured the separate facilities for domestic & Irish passengers as opposed to international flights at Heathrow T1, and in particular the 10 minute walk to gates 78-90 for the Irish flights, I have no wish to return to the pathetic separate facilities that were provided for passengers using those flights.

Any flight delays meant you were stuck with nowhere decent to eat or get a drink, especially if you had passed the security doors into the tunnel that was gates 78-90.

I am prepared to put up with the extra photo check to at least allow me the option of somewhere decent to catch a meal at the end of a long day.

The current experience at both T2 for Aer Lingus and T5 for BA flights to & from Ireland is light years ahead of what it used to be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The mixing of domestic and international passengers does have a significant affect at Heathrow terminal 5, because for transferring passengers it requires passengers to be separated and an additional check made. This happens before security, and the queue for this check (at least for international transfers) is often longer than the queue for security.

Presumably that is an immigration check for those transferring onto domestic flights? That would happen anyway if there were two terminals.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the airlines had put better seating arrangements in the 787 I would have said that the superiority of Airbus over Boeing would possibly be called into question, but the airlines shot themselves in the foot.

Or Boeing shot themselves in the foot...if they'd made the cabin maybe 3" narrower the airlines couldn't have done that...

 

[miami]

T5 arrivals

International -> Domestic. Get to T5A, then two options
1) go through a queue (with no fast-track) for boarding pass check.
2) this continues as a queue (with no fast-track) for immigration. EU and Non-EU are separated.
3) Photo ID of boarding pass
4) Go through security

Or
1) Go through passport control ('automated' booths available)
2) Go through baggage collection (ignore them, just walk on though)
3) Lift up to checkin
4) Go through security

International -> International.
1) go through a queue (with fast-track) for boarding pass check.
2) Go through security

If you're arriving and leaving long haul (short haul is usually T5A) you can try to pass security at T5B or T5C

Domestic->International
1) Go through boarding pass check

I don't see how separating domestic into it's own terminal would help. International to Domestic can be a pain, but then you can always go landside. Domestic to international is a breeze.

 

[anme]

Presumably that is an immigration check for those transferring onto domestic flights? That would happen anyway if there were two terminals.

No. As paulweaver writes below, even international -> international transfers have to go through a boarding pass check. This bypasses the immigration check which international -> domestic transferees must go through - but there is often a significant queue, sometimes stretching well outside the official queuing area. In my experience this typically takes longer than security, which is also hardly fast in T5.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am prepared to put up with the extra photo check to at least allow me the option of somewhere decent to catch a meal at the end of a long day.

The current experience at both T2 for Aer Lingus and T5 for BA flights to & from Ireland is light years ahead of what it used to be.

I can see the current arrangements at T5 are better than they used to be for domestic passengers, but T5 is now perhaps the worst major terminal in Europe for international -> international transfers. I guess there are winnings and losers, but I'm a clear loser and now avoid transferring in the UK as far as possible.

 

[miami]

No. As paulweaver writes below, even international -> international transfers have to go through a boarding pass check.

This is quite normal - they have the same in Singapore for example (infact in Singapore it's a boarding pass check, sometimes a security check, then exiting passport check, then a security check at the gate). It's to ensure that the only people airside are those actually flying out of there.

This bypasses the immigration check which international -> domestic transferees must go through - but there is often a significant queue, sometimes stretching well outside the official queuing area. In my experience this typically takes longer than security, which is also hardly fast in T5.

It's been a while since I transferred in T5, however from memory domestic is usually a far shorter queue than international. The problem is not enough security people (and a fairly terrible layout). If people weren't queueing for the first check, they'd simply be queueing for security. You don't get a situation where transit security is empty and bp checks aren't.

I'm a clear loser and now avoid transferring in the UK as far as possible.

While you're right, don't put it down to the boarding pass checks.

Another reason to avoid T5 is that you'd have to fly on BA, which is a pretty terrible airline - vastly overpriced (especially for those coming from the UK), service has been going downhill for about 5 years

 

[anme]

This is quite normal - they have the same in Singapore for example (infact in Singapore it's a boarding pass check, sometimes a security check, then exiting passport check, then a security check at the gate). It's to ensure that the only people airside are those actually flying out of there.

The issue isn't the fact that there's a boarding pass check, it's the fact that the check is so slow at T5.
BTW are there boarding pass checks at other Heathrow terminals, or for international transfers such as T5 -> T3? I don't remember them, but I could be wrong. Are they combined with security?

It's been a while since I transferred in T5, however from memory domestic is usually a far shorter queue than international. The problem is not enough security people (and a fairly terrible layout). If people weren't queueing for the first check, they'd simply be queueing for security. You don't get a situation where transit security is empty and bp checks aren't.

While you're right, don't put it down to the boarding pass checks.

I suspect indeed that the domestic queue is much shorter, but I haven't been through there. I'm not sure your logic about simply moving the queue from one place to another works as in the queues for security, transfer passengers are mixed with passengers starting their journeys at Heathrow. The throughput of security must be much higher than the throughput of the boarding pass checks.

Another reason to avoid T5 is that you'd have to fly on BA, which is a pretty terrible airline - vastly overpriced (especially for those coming from the UK), service has been going downhill for about 5 years

Well, that depends what you're comparing them to. BA short haul is pretty grim these days, but long haul is not too bad especially in their A380s. One of the poorer European airlines, but a totally different class than any of the US carriers. Prices vary - I travel for business and quite often end up on BA when travelling to the US because it's the cheapest practical option. It's certainly not my preferred route, but it's far far better than 12 hours on a United 747 which still has an overhead projector for in flight entertainment, and where every item in the in flight meal - "potatoes", "vegetables", "meat", "gravy" - is the same grey colour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

transfer passengers are mixed with passengers starting their journeys at Heathrow

Are you absolutely sure of that? I very much doubt it, because it would be too easy for someone to enter the UK sneakily if they were.

 

[gsnedders]

Are you absolutely sure of that? I very much doubt it, because it would be too easy for someone to enter the UK sneakily if they were.

They typically were until about a year ago; there's now separate security zones (though I think still shared with priority security?). Security guards are there to stop anyone going land-side.

Strictly speaking, the southern security checkpoint was essentially unused until about a year ago, when they started routing transferring passengers through it. (It used to have one queue open for priority security and that was it, IIRC.) I presume this was always planned for capacity expansion?

 

[berneyarms]

Are you absolutely sure of that? I very much doubt it, because it would be too easy for someone to enter the UK sneakily if they were.

Airside? Absolutely correct.

That's the whole point of the double photo ID check for UK domestic and Irish flights.

They have to match before people can board such a flight.