Edinburgh-4

[nighthawk117]

As part of the governments plan to restore the power sharing agreement in Northern Ireland, it seems they have agreed to begin talks with the United States on a pre-clearance facility in Belfast.

35. The Government will enter into exploratory talks with the United States Administration on the options for introducing pre-clearance checks on customs and immigration for passengers travelling on direct flights from Belfast International Airport and destinations in the USA.

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.go..._Paper__1_.pdf

Obviously this document is Northern Ireland specific, so no mention of Edinburgh or any other UK airport. Hopefully they are also included in the talks, and not just a one off for Belfast! If they can justify it in Belfast (which at the moment has no US flights) then surely EDI must be considered?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by nighthawk117

As part of the governments plan to restore the power sharing agreement in Northern Ireland, it seems they have agreed to begin talks with the United States on a pre-clearance facility in Belfast.

Pork barrel politics and nothing more, they just spaff money away. That said I fully expect ScotGov to do something similar. Politicians love foreign meetings and photo ops but almost none of them can balance a budget or have any commercial experience.

[GulfTraveller]

It makes no more sense to me than having pre-clearance at Edinburgh. How many daily flights to US can BFS sustain? If they are looking at pre-clearance it should look at LGW or possibly MAN where passenger numbers are highest. The percentage of non US passport holders at those airports is much higher than at EDI. I am excluding LHR because the logistics there would be nightmarish.

As I have said before, pre-clearance does not attract airlines as they are not greatly interested in how long it takes passengers to clear immigration.

[Planeraz]

Originally Posted by nighthawk117

As part of the governments plan to restore the power sharing agreement in Northern Ireland, it seems they have agreed to begin talks with the United States on a pre-clearance facility in Belfast.


Source: https://assets.publishing.service.go..._Paper__1_.pdf

Obviously this document is Northern Ireland specific, so no mention of Edinburgh or any other UK airport. Hopefully they are also included in the talks, and not just a one off for Belfast! If they can justify it in Belfast (which at the moment has no US flights) then surely EDI must be considered?

Sounds very much like a political aspiration rather than a realistic proposition anytime soon. Hypothetical - but if Belfast were to secure an American route, which would be required to be heavily subsidised in my opinion to attract a carrier, would one route justify the obvious costs associated with pre-clearance? Would the Irish Republic Gov be happy to see another PC so close to Dublin? EDI, have been pushing for PC for years now. They have only recently completed the congressional committee visit stage. The CEO is now encouraging the two Gov’s to make it happen. The Belfast story is good PR in the grander scheme in relation to the NI executive sitting again.

[jensdad]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

to avoid the centre of Livingstone?

Hmmm, just had as look on FR24 and they seem to be making the turn over Livingston rather than before it. My guess would be for separation from any immediately previous departures? A departure a few minutes ago, also heading south, didn't make the 'swerve' so it doesn't seem to be for ground clearance. (Pentland Hills to the south).

[inOban]

AIUI the ScoGov has to balance its budget as it has very limited borrowing powers. Whether it makes the right choices is another thing.

[SWBKCB]

Originally Posted by Planeraz

Sounds very much like a political aspiration rather than a realistic proposition anytime soon. Hypothetical - but if Belfast were to secure an American route, which would be required to be heavily subsidised in my opinion to attract a carrier, would one route justify the obvious costs associated with pre-clearance? Would the Irish Republic Gov be happy to see another PC so close to Dublin? EDI, have been pushing for PC for years now. They have only recently completed the congressional committee visit stage. The CEO is now encouraging the two Gov’s to make it happen. The Belfast story is good PR in the grander scheme in relation to the NI executive sitting again.

Clearly a political move to support the NI economy and promote growth. Little relevance to any PC aspirations elsewhere.

[nighthawk117]

Originally Posted by GulfTraveller

As I have said before, pre-clearance does not attract airlines as they are not greatly interested in how long it takes passengers to clear immigration.

EDI management clearly disagree. Pre-Clearance potentially attracts customers - which does attract customers.

There are still a lot of passengers flying to the US via other UK/EU hubs from Edinburgh. How many fly via Dublin because it has pre-clearance?

Offering pre-clearance might persuade more of these passengers to fly direct.

[laviation]

Then again, the US immigration experience is vastly improved - I don’t think it would make such a huge difference?

Furthermore, airlines do not factor in pre clearance in route development decisions.

All at the cost of precious space which is already limited - I honestly don’t see the big benefit this will bring for EDI?

[Planeraz]

Originally Posted by laviation

Then again, the US immigration experience is vastly improved - I don’t think it would make such a huge difference?

Furthermore, airlines do not factor in pre clearance in route development decisions.

All at the cost of precious space which is already limited - I honestly don’t see the big benefit this will bring for EDI?

Presumably, EDI looked at Dublin and noted how TATL operations/routes increased greatly as a result of PC. If the EDI CEO is to be believed, airlines have already indicated PC would open up new opportunities for TATL growth.

[BA318]

Originally Posted by laviation

Then again, the US immigration experience is vastly improved - I don’t think it would make such a huge difference?

Furthermore, airlines do not factor in pre clearance in route development decisions.

All at the cost of precious space which is already limited - I honestly don’t see the big benefit this will bring for EDI?

I wouldn’t say it’s improved. I flew to the US five times last year. JFK queues ranged from 35min to 2.5hrs. IAD was nearly 3 hours. DFW was 5 mins (although my colleague waited 2hrs a few days later). I have Global Entry now though which is a game changer.

[ATNotts]

Originally Posted by Planeraz

Presumably, EDI looked at Dublin and noted how TATL operations/routes increased greatly as a result of PC. If the EDI CEO is to be believed, airlines have already indicated PC would open up new opportunities for TATL growth.

The difference of course is that the principal TATL carrier is feeding the hub from numerous regional airports across the UK. Can you see Delta or United operating connecting feeders in EDI from the likes of BHX, SOU, BRS, LBA etc? I can't.

[edi_local]

Originally Posted by BA318

I wouldn’t say it’s improved. I flew to the US five times last year. JFK queues ranged from 35min to 2.5hrs. IAD was nearly 3 hours. DFW was 5 mins (although my colleague waited 2hrs a few days later). I have Global Entry now though which is a game changer.

I agree. I have been to the USA 4 times in the last 14 months and only once, in EWR, did I have a quick entry experience (just as well as I was in transit), where I waited about 10 minutes. IAH a few months later was about an hour, TPA at Christmas time was nearly 90 minutes, and BOS a few weeks ago was nearly 2 hours. Pretty much the only positive change is that they no longer stamp passports in the USA, as it saves valuable space. If EDI does gain pre-clearance it'll be a positive step and will open up much tighter connections on the US side. I am a bit confused as to where in the terminal they would put such a facility though as it also needs to be able to clear baggage for customs. Perhaps the current IA1 area will be renovated, it has the space for queuing, passport desks, and baggage belts already, so would make sense...but then CTA arrivals would need somewhere else to go, and it would be awkward to work it into the current flow of the terminal.

[inOban]

But I can see feeder flights from various locations in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe.

[SWBKCB]

Originally Posted by inOban

But I can see feeder flights from various locations in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe.

who would be the operator?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by inOban

But I can see feeder flights from various locations in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe.

Why would anyone one stop via EDI which has no Flight Connections facility over a direct protected connection from their home market? They'd have to clear the UK Border first unless EDI is planning on biometrics for all?

There's not that much more growth going to come in US-EDI I think, only American is missing, so unless EDI has the same delusion GLA had about being a hub between Europe and the USA, I am not sure where the ROI comes from, that 1977 build terminal is already needing a replacement as it's been modified well beyond the original intent.

[Donkey497]

But I can see feeder flights from various locations in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe.

Why?

To fly for an hour or more so that you can to go through UK immigration on arrival in EDI & then effectively go through the US immigration process immediately thereafter just so you can then cool your heels for the ever-increasing minimum transit inter flight time all in the effort to stroll off the plane once you've spent another eight hours plus crossing the pond really doesn't seem like a selling point to me when on the great circle you're not much more that the same eight or so hours from most of Europe to the US.
Even if the direct flight from the generic European destination is 3 hours longer than the EDI-US flight time it'd still be quicker to fly direct & clear on arrival than stop for pre-clearance here. I've been looking into what I can arrange for my own transatlantic travel this month & there's no direct flights this time of year & the shortest layover that I can book at an intermediary airport is 105 minutes. So, 2 hour flight from Europe to EDI, an hour and three quarters in the inevitable shopping mall and another eight hours across the pond versus even a 10 hour direct flight you're still looking at a quicker direct flight, even if the US immigration etc takes over an hour.

for many years I used to have to virtually commute to IAH for part of each year & I have to say that pre-clearance from my own experience was almost wholly irrelevant. Overall,my abiding preference was the original Delta 767 flight to ATL, clear there and hop on the next flight to IAH. The time between flights was really nicely judged, and the TSA there was really switched on, to allow you to clear without any real delay or risk of missing your connection and also it was good get up and move about freely. Second preference became the UA 757 to EWR, clear there and on to IAH. Slower and a bit of a faff changing terminals at EWR.

JFK was an unpleasant necessity on occasion & the BA/Heathrow clown show to anywhere else should frankly be buried at midnight with a stake through their hearts and their heads removed. [I am not a fan of London Airport] Clearance for international arrival at IAH I have to admit was hit & miss, depending on exactly what terminal you arrived at / were re-directed to once on foot & just how many jumbos, treble-7's etc. had all showed up at the same time.

As some of the others have pointed out, pre-clearance doesn't have any influence on the airline's route development plans, and from a passenger perspective it's a necessary evil that has to happen somewhere.

Whilst not wishing to stir the pot further, should "The Donald" by some global misfortune manage to get his feet under the oval office desk again, expect a reduction in pre-clearance facilities, not an expansion. [Nor am I a fan of the delusional snake oil salesman.]

[nighthawk117]

You're comparing flying direct vs flying through Edinburgh. What about people flying from places that dont have a direct flight to the US?

Compare flying through Edinburgh and using pre-clearance vs flying through Amsterdam or Paris.

EDI then becomes a slightly more preferable routing.

[Rutan16]

Originally Posted by nighthawk117

You're comparing flying direct vs flying through Edinburgh. What about people flying from places that dont have a direct flight to the US?

Compare flying through Edinburgh and using pre-clearance vs flying through Amsterdam or Paris.

EDI then becomes a slightly more preferable routing.

No it doesn’t as the alliance and associated ‘awards” and indeed frequencies still prevail thats the core of the alliance hub and spoke model .

Now i’ll caveat that with saying SAS transferring over to Skyteam ‘might” generate a potential small uplift as an alternate routing ( price sensitive) into the Delta/Virgin flights at times if the Stockholm flight is retimed correctly .

Wont be nearly sufficient to support TSA pre clearance through.

What potential feed flows are you considering for United and * étoile alliance not already covered satisfactorily via Heathrow Frankfurt Munich or Zurich I don’t know _ If Mr Bishops main carrier were still in business perhaps; they are not .

AA/ BAW/CFE as per SAS in reality - Now they have in the past used Manchester as an alternate when they shared the T3 terminal and it could work here if Philadelphia is restored again in very very small numbers _ Certainly wasn’t unknown to have upwards of 50 transfers in the past.

However generally it is my opinion that pre-clearance will become far less important in the near future as more digital documentation and procedures expand in Europe/UK and indeed USA.

[Donkey497]

You're comparing flying direct vs flying through Edinburgh. What about people flying from places that dont have a direct flight to the US?

Compare flying through Edinburgh and using pre-clearance vs flying through Amsterdam or Paris.

Okay.

1. Fly from Europe Spoke site to Europe Hub site with preclearance for USA. No immigration or customs clearance on arrival at EU Hub, just preclearance.

2. Fly from Europe Spoke to EDI spoke with preclearance for USA. Immigration & customs clearance on arrival at EDI as we're no longer "free movement", never mind Schengen, then preclearance.

3. Fly from Europe Spoke site to USA with no preclearance.

If you can't fly direct, 3. is by far the quickest with only a risk of delay on landing. 1. is next best as you have only a small risk of delay at preclearance and even if you do, there's likely to be a later flight [as it's a hub airport] that you could be transferred to. Option 2. is the worst. You risk delay at UK immigration AND customs as you will have to be landed before going through pre-clearance and then another delay risk at US preclearance which could prevent you getting on your once-daily EDI-spoke flight to the US hub airport.

I appreciate that there are more than one flights to the USA, but if you are connecting out of DC, say, a later flight to EWR may be an option but to other destinations served like Chicago, Orlando or Atlanta are getting towards the chocolate fireguard category.

I am afraid to say that until EDI actually becomes a hub airport for [multiple] US based airlines, I'm fimrly of the mind that preclearance will remain largely irrelevant.