Amsterdam Schiphol to get US border control? And Brussels thereafter?

[sn26567]

The U.S. authorities would like to conduct passenger and baggage border controls in Amsterdam Schiphol airport and have ask Dutch authorities for the authorisation to do so. That would remove a great hassle from passengers travelling to the U.S. and give Amsterdam airport a competitive advantage over other European platforms.

Could we expect the same in Brussels soon?

[Acid-drop]

What's the hidden goal ?

[Passenger]

What's the hidden goal ?

Main cost of this setup is for the organizing country, because "it's in the benefit of their citizens". Airport and airline(s) probably share the costs at AMS.

They (U.S.) want a whole terminal then, or at least a very secured area, because once the passengers are cleared by them, they are seen as domestic passengers within the U.S.

[RoMax]

What's the hidden goal ?

The US itself is in favour of more pre-clearance facilities, they are talking with at least 7 European countries/airports. AMS would obviously favor having US pre-clearance as it is a good selling point. Look at Ireland and Aer Lingus, how they use it as a marketing tool.

[VAA]

What's the hidden goal ?

It is keeping 'unsafe' passengers as much as possible out of the US and even out of the international areas of US airports I assume..

[Acid-drop]

What's the hidden goal ?

It is keeping 'unsafe' passengers as much as possible out of the US and even out of the international areas of US airports I assume..

Exactly my thoughts... thats probably the true hidden goal.
i doubt its a commercial/marketing matter.

[RoMax]

Exactly my thoughts... thats probably the true hidden goal.
i doubt its a commercial/marketing matter.

If you are looking at the US' goal yes. What I said was from the perspective of AMS, which is purely commercial (same like DXB which is crying to get US pre-clearance after AUH got it, altough it is quite a disaster in Abu Dhabi). But either way, it's hardly a 'hidden' goal, is it?

Btw, most famous examples of pre-clearance are Ireland and AUH, but Canada for example has quite a lot of US pre-clearance facilities and earlier this year they agreed on expanding it even further. I believe in total (so not only Canada) they have something like 15 pre-clearance facilities.

[sn-remember]

For the US it means the cost of clearance are transfered in other's hands.
For the grantees airlines point of view , it is indeed a commercial advantage however it has a cost and it's an operartional hindrance, the transit time must be extended with one additional hour at least. And some airports cannot implement it bcs of layout structures.
However all in all it's a strong marketing tool to have and bru would certainly profit from such a scheme. Sn and star could develop here more activities in the future if it was indeed implemented.

[LJ]

What's the hidden goal ?

AMS would obviously favor having US pre-clearance as it is a good selling point. Look at Ireland and Aer Lingus, how they use it as a marketing tool.

I doubt that AMS wants this. This seriously increases transfer times and that's something which will bea big problem for AMS. Logistically it may be possible with the planned extension, but even then it is probably not very efficient for them (you cannot assign gates at random). Finally, it's the Dutch government which mus approve it and there's enough opposition to this scheme to make it highly probably that t wouldn't go ahead.

However all in all it's a strong marketing tool to have and bru would certainly profit from such a scheme. Sn and star could develop here more activities in the future if it was indeed implemented.

It woul;dn't be an important marketing tool if you're one of many who have it. Moreover, how many fly via Ireland to be pre cleared?

[b720]

Not always an advantage for pax.. As will be required to be at the airport at least an hour earlier than before.. That might make it 3 hours before departure... While upon landing in the U.S. One can expect either 5 min at immigration or 1.5 hours or anything in between.. The situation is improving there as there is s faster track for transiting or connecting pax and people on esta are allowed to use electronic machines...

[MrG4]

Maybe is it linked?(do ut des?)
http://aeronews.ro/olanda-limiteaza-ope ... -golfului/

[sn26567]

I don't think that the fact that NL wants to limit flights from the Gulfies (this news is available in other languages than Romanian, by the way) has anything to do with the US request.

Holland was traditionally a country that was very positive with regard to open skies. That was, as long as it benefited KLM. But now that the Gulfies are taking market share away from KLM, suddenly the Dutch government jumps in! Surprise?

[LJ]

But now that the Gulfies are taking market share away from KLM, suddenly the Dutch government jumps in! Surprise?

It's a request from the US governement. The Dutch government has decided to "investigate the effects" and has strong reservations on this idea (not only due to the cost involved, but also because it's politcally a sensitive subject, especially as it concerns US governement officials of Dutch soil). Thus the Dutch goevernent hasn't "jumped in", they basically parked the idea and I doubt if the study will be completed very soon.

[sn-remember]

Holland was traditionally a country that was very positive with regard to open skies. That was, as long as it benefited KLM. But now that the Gulfies are taking market share away from KLM, suddenly the Dutch government jumps in! Surprise?

What's wrong with that ? Protectionism is not an ugly word IMO. Protectionism is a reality that drives politics from the US to China (to mention only the biggests players). Unfortunately the EC is far too unresponsive to this concept for ideological reasons mostly.
On the US customs and security preclearance issue, I find this article to give an interesting account:
http://crankyflier.com/2014/01/30/what- ... having-it/

[sn26567]

Arnaud Feist, CEO of Brussels Airport, has just announced on Twitter that "Brussels Airport has been selected by US Homeland Security department for pre-clearance analysis phase. This is an important step for Belgium's connectivity".

[Bralo20]

The announcement by DHS:

http://www.dhs.gov/news/2015/05/29/dhs- ... w-airports

The 10 airports identified for possible preclearance locations include: Brussels Airport, Belgium; Punta Cana Airport, Dominican Republic; Narita International Airport, Japan; Amsterdam Airport Schipol, Netherlands; Oslo Airport, Norway; Madrid-Barajas Airport, Spain; Stockholm Arlanda Airport, Sweden; Istanbul Ataturk Airport, Turkey; and London Heathrow Airport and Manchester Airport, United Kingdom. These countries represent some of the busiest last points of departure to the United States – in 2014, nearly 20 million passengers traveled from these ten airports to the US.

[sn26567]

Amsterdam and Brussels are still on the first priority list.

Today the US Dept of Home Security published a second priority list:

https://www.aviation24.be/organisations/dh ... clearance/

[stragke]

so if this is going to happen in BRU.
Wouldn't this be an perfect utilisation of terminal 'T'? right next to the european gates yet better safety. and I think their's enough space for the 3x United's 2x SN's and the delta.

[nordikcam]

so if this is going to happen in BRU.
Wouldn't this be an perfect utilisation of terminal 'T'? right next to the european gates yet better safety. and I think their's enough space for the 3x United's 2x SN's and the delta.

2 DL will be there : 1 JFK and 1 ATL...enough gates ?

[stragke]

din't know their were gonne be 2 DL flights but still have not the slightest clue how many gates are in the terminal could be 6 could be 8.