BA003 LCY-JFK Will Lose Pre-Clearance at SNN

Discussion in 'oneworld' started by DestinationDavid, Sep 6, 2012.  |  Print Topic

  1. DestinationDavid
    Original Member

    DestinationDavid Milepoint Guide

    Messages:
    6,846
    Likes Received:
    12,715
    Status Points:
    11,770
    LINK.

    From October 28 passengers on one of BA’s two daily all-business class flights from London City to New York will no longer be able to avail of US immigration pre-clearance at Shannon airport.

    The carrier launched flights between LCY and New York JFK using 32-seater Airbus A318 aircraft in 2009 (for a review of the service click here).

    BA currently offers two daily all-business class flights – BA001/2 and BA003/4 – with both services routing via Shannon on the outbound journey for refueling, before returning directly from New York.

    At present passengers can avail of US immigration pre-clearance at Shannon during the stop, meaning that they arrive at JFK as a domestic passenger, thus avoiding immigration queues.

    But BA has confirmed on its website that from October 28 pre-clearance will only be available on flight BA001.
     
  2. rwoman
    Original Member

    rwoman Gold Member

    Messages:
    5,617
    Likes Received:
    13,489
    Status Points:
    11,070
    Could they change the timing of the flight?
     
  3. daemon14

    daemon14 Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Status Points:
    1,075
    If they make it earlier, it encroaches on BA 1's departure time (1pm and 4pm).
     
  4. guberif

    guberif Silver Member

    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    Status Points:
    825
    I'm not one of those deficit hawks, but I don't mind reducing US staffing in a foreign country at the detriment of 32 BA fliers...
     
  5. MX

    MX Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    4,805
    Status Points:
    2,545
    Pre-clearance will still be available for BA001. So the staffing will be there, just do half the work. :D
     
  6. view
    Original Member

    view Silver Member

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    81
    Status Points:
    370
    I would think BA003 will struggle to sell the seats at the same price with this change, perhaps it will be a good option for redemptions.
     
  7. TRAVELSIG
    Original Member

    TRAVELSIG Gold Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Likes Received:
    5,509
    Status Points:
    4,145
    You do know that all foreign country staff for customs pre-clearance are 100% paid for (in fact a little more than 100% of total cost) by the airport hosting such staff?

    But why let details get in the way of a good job cut and productivity reduction?
     
    HaveMilesWillTravel likes this.
  8. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,504
    Likes Received:
    20,199
    Status Points:
    16,520
    So presumably Shannon wanted to reduce costs then? If so, the article doesn't really make that aspect clear, it just says:


    "Changes in the staffing regime at Shannon Airport, by the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has shortened the opening hours of their pre-clearance facility in Shannon."

    Which seems to put the blame on US CBP, triggering comments like this one on the original site:

    "Agree, the 003 becomes a dud without pre-clearance. The only thing tht would ok would be for BA to ensure a deducted queue at JFK for LCY pax to speed arrival. Otherwise, the lure of a lounge and the calm of upper deck means a demise of the 003. Thumbs down on US Border Force for killing off n excellent service!"
     
    TRAVELSIG likes this.
  9. TRAVELSIG
    Original Member

    TRAVELSIG Gold Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Likes Received:
    5,509
    Status Points:
    4,145
    Yes presumably Shannon doesn't want to pay for this anymore.
    Without preclearance this flight won't be worth it.
    Shame to see innovation thrown out the window.
     
  10. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,504
    Likes Received:
    20,199
    Status Points:
    16,520
    I wonder if BA was asked to pay for (part of) the cost?
     
  11. TRAVELSIG
    Original Member

    TRAVELSIG Gold Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Likes Received:
    5,509
    Status Points:
    4,145
    That IS the interesting question and if they responded No or changed their mind from a previous position- could this be a way of axing the flight without outright doing so???
     
  12. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,504
    Likes Received:
    20,199
    Status Points:
    16,520
    If this flight was the only one that kept the CBP agents around for those extra hours, I wonder how the revenue derived by Shannon from that flight (landing fees, ...) compares to the cost it incurred to reimburse the US. It probably just didn't make economic sense.
     
  13. guberif

    guberif Silver Member

    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    Status Points:
    825
    Again, regardless of who is paying for it (US Gov't or SNN airport) I can't imagine the math works if it is only to support 32 travelers. Now if there is other per-clearance traffic during that time, maybe.
     
  14. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,504
    Likes Received:
    20,199
    Status Points:
    16,520
    How does pre-clearance work anyway. Do passengers have to claim checked bags, walk them through customs, and then re-check them?
     
  15. TRAVELSIG
    Original Member

    TRAVELSIG Gold Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Likes Received:
    5,509
    Status Points:
    4,145
    I don't know in SNN- in large Canadian airports they ask you to identify your luggage on a video screen.
     
    HaveMilesWillTravel likes this.
  16. TRAVELSIG
    Original Member

    TRAVELSIG Gold Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Likes Received:
    5,509
    Status Points:
    4,145
    How did this change however from the time the flight was launched and now? If there are 32 travellers at 3500 GBP each it would most like economically work without a hitch.

    I have a different hypothesis here- my understanding was that this flight was launched due to a guarantee from a large Canary Wharf company for certain volume levels and from BA to maintain the flight based on the volume levels. IF (and this is completely made up from my own no-basis-at-all perspective) BA wanted to cancel the flight without violating their contract- this COULD be one way to do so. Just a wild guess.
     
  17. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,504
    Likes Received:
    20,199
    Status Points:
    16,520
    This FT post seems to basically confirm that:

    http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16929185-post14.html

    "All pax disembark at the same time. Those with bags wait in a seating area until the bags have been unloaded. You then proceed into the immigration area (very similar to a regular US one), clutching your bag tags and passport. Your bag tags are used to bring up the images of your bags, and you are asked to confirm these are your bags."
     
  18. tommy777
    Original Member

    tommy777 Co-founder

    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    6,596
    Status Points:
    4,570
    How about using a plane that has the range instead (like the BBJ). You'll save in whatever the immigration line might be by operating non stop
     
    DestinationDavid likes this.
  19. kw335
    Original Member

    kw335 Silver Member

    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Status Points:
    975
    They could make 003 go LCY-DUB-JFK instead, and keep the pre-clearance benefit intact :)
     
  20. daemon14

    daemon14 Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Status Points:
    1,075
    Dublin pre-clearance closes before BA 003 could make it to DUB.
     

Share This Page