According to the latest news, BRU is confirmed to become a US border preclearance station, with 30 CBP agents to be stationed permanently.
This is huge for BRU.
Link will follow soon.
Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
Moderator: Latest news team
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
It has been discussed for years! Finally a breakthrough, thus.
See viewtopic.php?f=7&t=62050 dating from 2017.
And viewtopic.php?f=7&t=56242 dating from 2016.
André
ex Sabena #26567
ex Sabena #26567
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
The return of the once famous US zone at the end of pier B?
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
André
ex Sabena #26567
ex Sabena #26567
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
That could also mean a boost for the flights offered out of BRU to the US. In the LH-group for instance, FRA and MUC have flights to many more destinations in the USA, but no border clearance, not even planned? I hope this might help SN to attract more transfer pax in the LH-group. Maybe even a reason to open more destinations besides only JFK and IAD?
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
A connection between BRU and the US West Coast (LAX?) would be nice.
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
Since BRU is only one of the few Star Alliance airports to get US preclearence it might open up opportunities for UA to expand at BRU.
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
Opening routes to The States is nice but you need the pax for it.
Belgium alone is too small, thus transfer pax are extremely important.
Making neighbour countries warm to fly from Belgium. Nord of France, South of The Netherlands, etc.
Making from SN the real network carrier, this one who is feeding all those and other flights.
Competition to the States is very high, so earning is not easy. But why not convince the American carriers to fly more via BRU instead of AMS or LHR? And a more late afternoon and evening flights.
But all this will all take more time. COVID is not making it easier to open new routes
Belgium alone is too small, thus transfer pax are extremely important.
Making neighbour countries warm to fly from Belgium. Nord of France, South of The Netherlands, etc.
Making from SN the real network carrier, this one who is feeding all those and other flights.
Competition to the States is very high, so earning is not easy. But why not convince the American carriers to fly more via BRU instead of AMS or LHR? And a more late afternoon and evening flights.
But all this will all take more time. COVID is not making it easier to open new routes
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
Instead of opening the 'promised' second EWR flight from AMS (!), and starting from that same SkyTeam airport a seasonal SFO route. This was/is a slap in the face for BRU airport.
If I am not mistaken that same Airport was also in the initial list of US preclearance.
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
AMS stated that there are some negative side effects of having pre-clearance. One of them is increased connection times and less eficient banking of flights (the latter more important for Skyteam airlines). Another is space. AFAIK they still doubt if the added value of pre-clearance outweighs the negative consequences.VEX802 wrote: ↑22 Jul 2020, 17:39Instead of opening the 'promised' second EWR flight from AMS (!), and starting from that same SkyTeam airport a seasonal SFO route. This was/is a slap in the face for BRU airport.
If I am not mistaken that same Airport was also in the initial list of US preclearance.
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
What is "less eficient banking of flights"?LJ wrote: ↑22 Jul 2020, 17:52AMS stated that there are some negative side effects of having pre-clearance. One of them is increased connection times and less eficient banking of flights (the latter more important for Skyteam airlines). Another is space. AFAIK they still doubt if the added value of pre-clearance outweighs the negative consequences.VEX802 wrote: ↑22 Jul 2020, 17:39Instead of opening the 'promised' second EWR flight from AMS (!), and starting from that same SkyTeam airport a seasonal SFO route. This was/is a slap in the face for BRU airport.
If I am not mistaken that same Airport was also in the initial list of US preclearance.
Thx
Hasta la victoria siempre.
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
At present normally (thus without COVID-19) Skyteam would have 3 banks (10:00 - 11:30, 13:00 - 14:00, 16:00 - 17:30) for US departures at AMS. The morning bank departs from 10:00 - 11:00. If the connection time increases for these flights, then a morning bank of 10:00 - 11:00 has to move back as you cannot depart too early from many European destinations. Moving the bank has also consequences for the time the aircraft arrives in the States and thus arrives back in AMS. The fear (especially from KL) is/was that pre-clearance may mean that one of the banks has to go or results in less efficient use of the aircraft. The conclusion was (don't if it still applies) that pre-clearance makes sense if you don't have too many flights to the US as the amount of passngers that needs to be cleared can be so high that you've to take into account another hour as the passenger needs to eb cleared before boarding the aircraft. There is a piece on all the "negatives" on CAPA.
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... ost-229961
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
AMS is a completely different airport than BRU. KLM, Delta, AA and United has really lot of daily flights there.LJ wrote: ↑22 Jul 2020, 21:25At present normally (thus without COVID-19) Skyteam would have 3 banks (10:00 - 11:30, 13:00 - 14:00, 16:00 - 17:30) for US departures at AMS. The morning bank departs from 10:00 - 11:00. If the connection time increases for these flights, then a morning bank of 10:00 - 11:00 has to move back as you cannot depart too early from many European destinations. Moving the bank has also consequences for the time the aircraft arrives in the States and thus arrives back in AMS. The fear (especially from KL) is/was that pre-clearance may mean that one of the banks has to go or results in less efficient use of the aircraft. The conclusion was (don't if it still applies) that pre-clearance makes sense if you don't have too many flights to the US as the amount of passngers that needs to be cleared can be so high that you've to take into account another hour as the passenger needs to eb cleared before boarding the aircraft. There is a piece on all the "negatives" on CAPA.
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... ost-229961
This you cannot compare with the not so many flights from BRU to the States
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
Thanks LJ for the explanation.LJ wrote: ↑22 Jul 2020, 21:25At present normally (thus without COVID-19) Skyteam would have 3 banks (10:00 - 11:30, 13:00 - 14:00, 16:00 - 17:30) for US departures at AMS. The morning bank departs from 10:00 - 11:00. If the connection time increases for these flights, then a morning bank of 10:00 - 11:00 has to move back as you cannot depart too early from many European destinations. Moving the bank has also consequences for the time the aircraft arrives in the States and thus arrives back in AMS. The fear (especially from KL) is/was that pre-clearance may mean that one of the banks has to go or results in less efficient use of the aircraft. The conclusion was (don't if it still applies) that pre-clearance makes sense if you don't have too many flights to the US as the amount of passngers that needs to be cleared can be so high that you've to take into account another hour as the passenger needs to eb cleared before boarding the aircraft. There is a piece on all the "negatives" on CAPA.
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... ost-229961
Hasta la victoria siempre.
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
Far from me to pretend that there are no downside to having US pre-clearance (the physical facilities required for one), however I think it is, at best, a far more nuanced argument. YYZ and YVR each have far more connecting passengers between Europe or Asia and the US, and both airports see pre-clearance as an advantage to attract passengers who require a connection in their trip, not a hindrance.LJ wrote: ↑22 Jul 2020, 21:25The conclusion was (don't if it still applies) that pre-clearance makes sense if you don't have too many flights to the US as the amount of passngers that needs to be cleared can be so high that you've to take into account another hour as the passenger needs to eb cleared before boarding the aircraft.
A once-a-year leisure traveler who thinks of their trip's duration as the time between landing and take-off may not understand the benefits of pre-clearance and consider the travel time to be longer than through other airports, however these travelers also care far more about the ticket price than time spent traveling. Regular fliers will appreciate the benefits. I would expect pre-clearance to be a net benefit for BRU overall, but it may negatively affect Air Canada. A not-insignificant share of its YUL customers are bound for the US and go through pre-clearance on their connection (present company included).
As far as AMS goes, I wonder whether one of the issues may not be structural. Can all US-bound flights be consolidated into a single pier without affecting flights to other destinations? Will the airport have to build dual facilities, or a sterile connector between piers? Or may they have to limit access to pre-clearance only to certain airlines?
This article was written in 2015. While it raises valid points, others were already incorrect when it was published, and a few more have been addressed since (e.g. most US pre-clearance stations have separate lanes for US and non-US citizens, Global Entry kiosks have been installed).Atlantis wrote: ↑22 Jul 2020, 21:33There is a piece on all the "negatives" on CAPA.
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... ost-229961
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
Indeed, hence why it may work at BRU. The only drawback remains that if connecting times are higher, the connection will be lower in the GDS and thus get less exposure.
Airlines do not focus on leisure passengers as they don't bring in the money. As for regular travellers, the article correctly points to schemes like Global Entry and the fact that the immigration lines for Americans are not that long in the US. Such a traveller will not see an added benefit in a longer connection or having to be earlier at the airport. Overall, it will be something which creates a choice (especially if there is an alternative like FRA or ZRH), thus if the cost/benefit is positive it's something one should do (I've heard that US pre-clearance isn't cheap for a country/airport).longwings wrote: ↑23 Jul 2020, 03:09A once-a-year leisure traveler who thinks of their trip's duration as the time between landing and take-off may not understand the benefits of pre-clearance and consider the travel time to be longer than through other airports, however these travelers also care far more about the ticket price than time spent traveling. Regular fliers will appreciate the benefits.
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
Takes you guys time to make the mental connection between this and air belgium
My messages reflect my personal opinion which may be different than yours. I beleive a forum is made to create a debate so I encourage people to express themselves, the way they want, with the ideas they want. I expect the same understanding in return.
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
What do you mean?
Hasta la victoria siempre.
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
"Not that long" is relative. They are shorter in YYZ and YUL than in IAD or EWR still. As for Global Entry, I agree processing time through the kiosks seems to be about the same everywhere, however everyone going through pre-clearance in Canada does so without retrieving their luggage for CBP inspection.LJ wrote: ↑24 Jul 2020, 18:54 As for regular travellers, the article correctly points to schemes like Global Entry and the fact that the immigration lines for Americans are not that long in the US. Such a traveller will not see an added benefit in a longer connection or having to be earlier at the airport. Overall, it will be something which creates a choice (especially if there is an alternative like FRA or ZRH), thus if the cost/benefit is positive it's something one should do (I've heard that US pre-clearance isn't cheap for a country/airport).
Individual experiences may not matter as much as minimum connecting times though, and I think the evidence is there to show there is a potential time saving. MCT at FRA is 45 minutes, MCT for domestic-to-US is 70 minutes at YYZ and 55 minutes at YUL, so a gap of 25 minutes (being pessimistic). Whether you are landing or connecting on your first point of entry in the US, the difference between being treated as a domestic vs international passenger is going to be more than 25 minutes just about everywhere... All I can say from personal experience is that I have experienced long waits at preclearance only at times when everywhere else in the US would have been the same (e.g. Thanksgiving).
Obviously passengers who only know to look at the wheels-up to wheels-down time and are unaware BRU has pre-clearance would tend to go elsewhere. Clearly BRU is hoping they will be the minority.
Since pre-clearance agreements have all been fully reciprocal to date, maybe BRU and Brussels Airlines can lobby the Belgian government to set up immigration checks in the US so flights can land at pier A and offer quick Schengen connections (yes, I am joking).
If I recall correctly, how costs are distributed is based on individual negotiations. CBP does an initial assessment to determine the ideal opening hours and number of officers needed, for which they cover most of the personnel costs. If the host countries want longer opening hours and/or more officers to speed up the processing, CBP may agree provided that the host covers all/most of the additional costs. Facilities costs are always born by the host countries, though the use of dual-purpose gates can help offset the need to have dedicated facilities (e.g. YYZ has movable walls to adjust the number of gates dedicated to pre-clearance). Since preclearance areas are sealed, there are additional costs to duplicate existing airport services (e.g. shopping, dining, lounge,...).
-
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: 19 Mar 2017, 10:22
- Location: Uccle/Ukkel, BE
- Contact:
Re: Breaking: BRU obtains US border preclearance station status
Hi. I'm Thibault Lapers. @ThibaultLapers & @TLspotting