The Dutch government said on Tuesday it had ended talks with the United States over allowing "pre-clearance" of passengers travelling from Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport following President Donald Trump's curbs on immigration.

www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/dutc ... 81366.html

Is Trumps executive order going to have a big impact on pre-clearence? In the light of international regulations it's one of the only things other countries can do to show their disagreement, as it's voluntary,

Cuts off nose, spites passengers faces. Great world we live in.

The Irish government is undertaking a review of preclearance in Ireland in light of the recent Trump executive order:
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0130/84865 ... ration-us/

Nothing likely to come of it though.

Bricktop wrote:

Cuts off nose, spites passengers faces. Great world we live in.

More like "Acknowledges new reality, stands by coherent ideology, doesn't cowl to bullies and blowhards." If you have a problem with this perhaps you should look at the root cause rather than complaining about the symptoms.

Rather shortsighted move.

Regardless of where the clearance takes place an inadmissible person is an inadmissible person for the U.S.

What this does is hurt Schiphol Airport which believes having the US preclearance would boost its popularity and be a commercial advantage.

satx wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Cuts off nose, spites passengers faces. Great world we live in.

More like "Acknowledges new reality, stands by coherent ideology, doesn't cowl to bullies and blowhards." If you have a problem with this perhaps you should look at the root cause rather than complaining about the symptoms.

Yeah, it's a real Profiles in Courage stance. That'll teach him.

Would AMS even be able to have Pre-clearance as AMS has quite a lot of flights to the states? Maybe they are using Trump as an excuse (not saying that I am a supporter of him).

In theory, the passenger wouldn't even be able to get a boarding pass in order to get to the pre-clearance in the first place! The airline won't issue a BP unless the passenger has proper visa depending on nationality.

I couldnt even imagine having to Pre-Clear at AMS... passport control in the mornings is already an absolute mad house with all of the flights to the US... I don't think they even have the room for this.

lesfalls wrote:

Would AMS even be able to have Pre-clearance as AMS has quite a lot of flights to the states? Maybe they are using Trump as an excuse (not saying that I am a supporter of him).

Talks were going on, so it must have been considered potentially viable initially. But the operation would have to be much bigger than any current pre-clearance location (that I'm aware of), i.e. today between 9:50 and 10:45 there are 9 departures to the USA from AMS.

I'm an American citizen and frequently travel to AMS. I see zero benefit whatsoever from Preclearance. It adds a lot of additional hassle at check-in, as you now need to arrive an extra hour or so early and have to worry about checking in luggage, going through immigration, then claiming luggage again and going through customs, and then going through security, etc. Huge hassle as far as I'm concerned. AMS has so many flights to the US and covers so many destinations that there's less issue with connections on the US side as it is.

From a cost perspective, this would represent a massive investment in infrastructure at Schiphol, at a time when the airport is already making massive overhauls. From a US taxpayer standpoint, I cringe at the thought of more overpriced customs personnel living being based overseas and paid for by US taxpayers. The costs massively outweigh the benefits.

Good on Schiphol for shutting this nonsense down.

avi8tir wrote:

I couldnt even imagine having to Pre-Clear at AMS... passport control in the mornings is already an absolute mad house with all of the flights to the US... I don't think they even have the room for this.

A new terminal is being build before 2013, that could have made room available.

Bricktop wrote:

Cuts off nose, spites passengers faces. Great world we live in.

*DL picks up phone to begin talks at CDG*

The rhetoric of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is silly. It is the Dutch government's decision whether or not to allow U.S. Pre-Clearance. The fact they don't want to have one is their decision and doesn't make a huge difference to U.S. bound travelers. You can be held up in Schipol or at JFK but you will be held up.

It seems clear that the idea things will become more efficient won't happen. There will be more scrutiny, more controls and longer wait times.

YYZ is the second busiest gateway to the US after LHR and preclearance works there.

The problem for the airlines is if a passenger is denied entry to the US by CBP, the passenger takes the next flight back to, in this instance, AMS at the airline's expense including possible denied boarding compensation to another revenue passenger.

The advantage with pre-clearance is two-fold:
- onward connections once arriving in the USA can have shorter minimum connection times as they don't need to account for customs/immigration inspection at arrival.
- flights can arrive at airports in the US that don't have full customs/immigration facilities (they still need appropriate staffing though).

The former is not a huge benefit; the latter is a benefit only if there is a reasonable expectation that flights will evolve to meet that potential.

RobertS975 wrote:

In theory, the passenger wouldn't even be able to get a boarding pass in order to get to the pre-clearance in the first place! The airline won't issue a BP unless the passenger has proper visa depending on nationality.

Then how do you explain all these people stranded for hours in holding rooms after arriving in the U.S.?
I think the main concern here from the Dutch is the knee jerk reaction in which this administration seems to handle everything. doing business with this administration is going to be a roller coaster ride and some governments won't feel that it's worth the effort. If AMS has pre-clearance, and we know that AMS has a lot of flight connections to Asia/Africa, and one day without warning the U.S. issues a travel ban from a bunch of countries. Now AMS is stuck with hundreds if not thousands of stranded passengers.

rwsea wrote:

I'm an American citizen and frequently travel to AMS. I see zero benefit whatsoever from Preclearance.

As you should. Pre-clearance is not for the benefit of U.S. citizens or even permanent residents. Pre-clearance is advantageous for visitors as pre-clearance lines tend to be a lot shorter than those found at a U.S. point of entry. Pre-clearance also allows for airlines to fly into U.S. airports where there is no CBP facilities, which is not exactly a issue for AMS.
The biggest advantage that pre-clearance offers to U.S. citizens is if you're connecting in the U.S. to your final destination, you arrive at a domestic gate and can probably make your connection in as little as 45 minutes.

The talks for pre clearance at Manchester are still on track, announcement could be soon.

Whatever you think of Trump and his policies, rejecting pre clearance is short sighted. Trump will last 4 years, doubtful he will get the 8. It's unlikely pre clearance wouldn't have been up and running at AMS in those 4 years anyway, but now it will be low down the queue when the new president does start up.

User001 wrote:

The talks for pre clearance at Manchester are still on track, announcement could be soon.

Whatever you think of Trump and his policies, rejecting pre clearance is short sighted. Trump will last 4 years, doubtful he will get the 8. It's unlikely pre clearance wouldn't have been up and running at AMS in those 4 years anyway, but now it will be low down the queue when the new president does start up.

How is it short-sighted? The US is the only country in the world with these types of pre-clearance arrangements. US immigration is a pain for everyone involved (US citizens and visitors alike), but it isn't that much different that going through immigration and customs elsewhere in the world. I have horror stories from lots of countries that make entering the US seem like a dream by comparison. Why is the US so special/different that pre-clearance is a must for the US but not for other countries? In other words, why will AMS regret so much that they don't have preclearance to the US but not regret that they don't offer it for other places?

I wasn't talking about the pros and cons of pre clearance, it has good points and not so good points,

My point was that at some point, Holland wanted pre clearance. Now it doesn't based on Trumps policies. That's the bit that's short sighted basing a long term decision based on a 4 year presidency to which afterwards it could return to normal and a situation where Holland again wants pre clearance but now has ground to make up as it will be years behind on the process.

airbazar wrote:

RobertS975 wrote:

In theory, the passenger wouldn't even be able to get a boarding pass in order to get to the pre-clearance in the first place! The airline won't issue a BP unless the passenger has proper visa depending on nationality.

Then how do you explain all these people stranded for hours in holding rooms after arriving in the U.S.?

Those people had the proper visa on departure before the EO was signed, however on arrival after the EO was signed they no longer had it.

This hurts AMS and KL.
Does it hurt the U.S.? Not really.
Whatever small saving U.S. airlines operating into AMS could have earned, they can earn it 1 million fold with the tax cuts and subsidies that Pres. Trump is going to give them. I also think that the ME4 will see their bilateral frequencies cut in half.

It's most likely that Trump is going to scrap all the pre-clearance facilities anyway.
They cost money to run and why should the U.S. taxpayer pay for them? It's absurd.

So how much of the cluster f*** at the US airports was a result of low level employees who did not agree with the policy change?

I disagree that Pre-Clearance does not benefit US citizens, one should remember that when it was first instituted, Americans were travelling to foreign countries without passports. When you look at arrival halls in the US, they have lines for US citizens because you want to allow your returning citizens to get home with little to no fuss. One arrival hall is catering to multiple flights from multiple destinations, pre-clearance allows all easier access on arrival to the US.

It's amazing how the US has managed to convince a lot of people in power that pre-clearance is something to be desired by airlines, airports, passengers, etc. They have even convinced some foreign parties to share the cost of building and operating these facilities. I think the aviation sector should rather put pressure on the US authorities to actually speed things up at US ports of entry.

Waterbomber wrote:

This hurts AMS and KL.
Does it hurt the U.S.? Not really.
Whatever small saving U.S. airlines operating into AMS could have earned, they can earn it 1 million fold with the tax cuts and subsidies that Pres. Trump is going to give them. I also think that the ME4 will see their bilateral frequencies cut in half.

It's most likely that Trump is going to scrap all the pre-clearance facilities anyway.
They cost money to run and why should the U.S. taxpayer pay for them? It's absurd.

The U.S. taxpayer pays for U.S. customs and immigration regardless of where the check takes place.

hvusslax wrote:

It's amazing how the US has managed to convince a lot of people in power that pre-clearance is something to be desired by airlines, airports, passengers, etc. They have even convinced some foreign parties to share the cost of building and operating these facilities. I think the aviation sector should rather put pressure on the US authorities to actually speed things up at US ports of entry.

Exactly! The only reason for pre-clearance is inadequate staffing and infrastructure at US points of entry. If the money spent on pre-clearance was actually spent putting more customs officers, technology and screening posts into US Airports then there really wouldn't be a need for pre-clearance. And given the Trump Administrations rhetoric about putting Americans first etc you can expect less countries to want to co-operate on things like this without reciprocity from the US.

satx wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Cuts off nose, spites passengers faces. Great world we live in.

More like "Acknowledges new reality, stands by coherent ideology, doesn't cowl to bullies and blowhards." If you have a problem with this perhaps you should look at the root cause rather than complaining about the symptoms.

rwsea wrote:

I'm an American citizen and frequently travel to AMS. I see zero benefit whatsoever from Preclearance. It adds a lot of additional hassle at check-in, as you now need to arrive an extra hour or so early and have to worry about checking in luggage, going through immigration, then claiming luggage again and going through customs, and then going through security, etc. Huge hassle as far as I'm concerned. AMS has so many flights to the US and covers so many destinations that there's less issue with connections on the US side as it is.
Good on Schiphol for shutting this nonsense down.

If you are flying AMS-JFK as an citizen, it makes little or no difference; you will go through Customs and Immigration at one airport anyway, so it is a wash (although preclearance airports have been, so far, less crowded and backed-up than their domestic brothers). If you are flying AMS-JFK-XXX, preclearance allows you to skip the mess at JFK - and it definitely can be a mess, when multiple flights are arriving near the the same time - and have less worry about tight connection times, going through Customs and Immigration at an arguably easier and faster site.

The real advantage of preclearance is not to the passenger, though; it is to security. The ability to clear (or not clear) passengers before they ever fly to US soil means those refused entry won't have to be repatriated from JFK (or whatever airport), but would be denied the flight before they ever nboarded. That is considered to be a huge (or yuuge, as it may be current fashion) security and cost advantage, both by the government and the airlines.

The new problem - the uncertainty of what the EO means, and the constantly-changing story of whom it affects - means a passenger connecting through AMS might be allowed to get that far, but then be denied further passage to the USA - the rules, it seems, are being "refined" minute-by-minute (and also being interpreted differently at each airport: see how JFK handled situations vs. the disaster at IAD).

Until the dust settles, and these shot-from-the-hip-without-consulting-the-agencies-affected-by-them orders become clear - or are replaced by more definitive rules - it is hard to blame any airport for being gun-shy in dealing with the US government.

Having done pre-clearance at YYZ, YYC, YEG and NAS I don't see any benefit to it. You have to go through the whole routine at some point anyway. I would just as soon do it in the US. Perhaps if you reside outside the US it may be different but as a US citizen it doesn't seem worth it

I see it as simple as not having all pax flow through one pipe. On arrival in MIA from Jamaica, I encounter much more pax than if I was able to pre-clear.
If you look at staffing in the US, are they able to roster staff just for peak periods or must staff present for the entire day? - Union issue?
Example I have seen peak times at MIA, JFK and a couple others, if the US government adequately staff the FIS to quickly process peak pax, what do those staff do during off peak?

At MIA now that AA has changed their bank's, how has the FIS been functioning, I have not to a non-precler airport in 2016, hence the question.

rwsea wrote:

How is it short-sighted?

Having pre-clearance to the largest air market in the World is a huge competitive advantage for the airport.

catiii wrote:

Those people had the proper visa on departure before the EO was signed, however on arrival after the EO was signed they no longer had it.

Exactly and if they had been in transit at that time, at one of these pre-clearance airports, they would have been stuck there and it would have been up to the authorities at that country to take care of them (not the U.S.).

Waterbomber wrote:

This hurts AMS and KL.
Does it hurt the U.S.? Not really.

It costs the airlines money and time. Connections are streamlined and much quicker if the flight arrives at a domestic gate. It's also cheaper to operate at your own terminal than at a common use international terminal and then having to tow the airplane around the airfield. As an airline you're also not on the hook for sending the passenger back if he or she is denied entry.

alfa164 wrote:

The new problem - the uncertainty of what the EO means, and the constantly-changing story of whom it affects - means a passenger connecting through AMS might be allowed to get that far, but then be denied further passage to the USA - the rules, it seems, are being "refined" minute-by-minute (and also being interpreted differently at each airport: see how JFK handled situations vs. the disaster at IAD).

Until the dust settles, and these shot-from-the-hip-without-consulting-the-agencies-affected-by-them orders become clear - or are replaced by more definitive rules - it is hard to blame any airport for being gun-shy in dealing with the US government.

100% agree. Unfortunately I think this is the new normal. This is how he operates which I think is why AMS is pulling out.

Flaps wrote:

Having done pre-clearance at YYZ, YYC, YEG and NAS I don't see any benefit to it. You have to go through the whole routine at some point anyway. I would just as soon do it in the US. Perhaps if you reside outside the US it may be different but as a US citizen it doesn't seem worth it

You must be a U.S. citizen. The experience for non-citizens is very different. Citizens don't have to go through the interrogation process, finger printing, and retina scan. That all takes time. At a U.S. point of entry a 2 hour wait in line is not unusual for visitors. Not true at a pre-clearance facility because there are much fewer flights with non-citizen passengers.

Speaking purely as a passenger I hate preclearance and dread dealing with it. I recognize that it makes sense in Canada and the Carribean in that it allows service to US airports that don't have full facilities but having it in places like Ireland, AUH, and potentially other destinations in Europe is a pain in the butt. Also, I personally feel that the claim that it helps makes the process easier upon arrival in the USA is overstated as it simply shifts the hassle to your origin.

Again, that's my opinion as a passenger only.

"easier upon arrival in the USA is overstated as it simply shifts the hassle to your origin."
....which is the point, it is less of a hassle dealing with only the pax from one airport versus the multitudes from multiple airports in one big facility with much longer lines.

Most business houses today - and I would not be shocked if the US government does also - use computer modelling to identify how many access points are required to server their customers, it's why when you walk into a bank for example, you will never find all the booths manned, when it fills up, temporary staff are assigned, now can the US government do the same?

rwsea wrote:

I have horror stories from lots of countries that make entering the US seem like a dream by comparison.

Care to enlighten us?

par13del wrote:

I see it as simple as not having all pax flow through one pipe. On arrival in MIA from Jamaica, I encounter much more pax than if I was able to pre-clear.
If you look at staffing in the US, are they able to roster staff just for peak periods or must staff present for the entire day? - Union issue?
Example I have seen peak times at MIA, JFK and a couple others, if the US government adequately staff the FIS to quickly process peak pax, what do those staff do during off peak?

At MIA now that AA has changed their bank's, how has the FIS been functioning, I have not to a non-precler airport in 2016, hence the question.

The issue you point to is staffing and inadequate resources. This isn't a problem that can't be overcome. In fact, I'd rather spend limited resources on increasing capacity and adding officers in the US, rather than paying for expensive "expat" postings for US customs officers abroad. Sorting out all of the work permits, living situations, tax, etc. is very costly. I wouldn't be surprised if it cost double in order to put an officer at a foreign location. For the same cost I'd rather add another officer at MIA.

par13del wrote:

"easier upon arrival in the USA is overstated as it simply shifts the hassle to your origin."
....which is the point, it is less of a hassle dealing with only the pax from one airport versus the multitudes from multiple airports in one big facility with much longer lines.

Most business houses today - and I would not be shocked if the US government does also - use computer modelling to identify how many access points are required to server their customers, it's why when you walk into a bank for example, you will never find all the booths manned, when it fills up, temporary staff are assigned, now can the US government do the same?

So why are other countries capable of handling arrivals from multiple airports, but the US needs a preclearance arrangement because we can't hire enough people or build proper facilities? I don't think that's an acceptable excuse.

You have to agree with the Dutch government. Based on the OE and the "mess" it created at the US airports, why would they want a mess affecting their airports in the same fashion i.e overnight orders that make no sense and badly communicated...
If it's Americans first than why should the Dutch deal with the issues caused by the US president?
Short sighted or not as mentioned above, Dutch have to look out for the Dutch too

Personally I love preclearance as a US citizen. You go through the whole mess at the beginning and it's OVER. I can get off the plane and head home a lot quicker and stress free compared to arriving at JFK, MIA

KTPAFlyer wrote:

rwsea wrote:

I have horror stories from lots of countries that make entering the US seem like a dream by comparison.

Care to enlighten us?

I've seen long lines at US immigration for sure, but those are not the norm.

I usually wait an hour at LHR, no matter where I am coming from or the time of day. Ever landed at LHR after a couple 747s and A380s from DXB or DEL?
DME was one of my worst immigration experiences ever, waiting nearly 2 hours and lots of people jumping lines and overall chaos, plus air conditioning that wasn't working in the summer.
Worst ever arrival was at AMM at 2 in the morning with massive queues and lots of families and large groups simply pushing/cutting their way to the front.
Have also had long waits at HKG, TPE, and even AMS itself.

Queuing for immigration is annoying part of travel, but my point is that there's nothing special about the US in this regard, nor is it significantly better or worse than any other country in the world. On that basis, I don't think it's a wise use of my tax money to be building all these specialized facilities around the world and adding all the overhead associated with posting officers abroad.

Jetty wrote:

The Dutch government said on Tuesday it had ended talks with the United States over allowing "pre-clearance" of passengers travelling from Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport following President Donald Trump's curbs on immigration.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wor ... 81366.html

Is Trumps executive order going to have a big impact on pre-clearence? In the light of international regulations it's one of the only things other countries can do to show their disagreement, as it's voluntary,

Pre-clearance is dumb in these markets anyway. It only makes sense in places in North America with high volume to the USA. It would ruin Amsterdam. I don't understand why anybody would want pre-clearance in a place where there's likely only a single flight where you are going. Any kind of problem with kiosks or staffing or policy changes or delays and you are screwed. If you have the same problem in ORD CBP you just catch the next flight to SBN or maybe even drive.

par13del wrote:

"easier upon arrival in the USA is overstated as it simply shifts the hassle to your origin."
....which is the point, it is less of a hassle dealing with only the pax from one airport versus the multitudes from multiple airports in one big facility with much longer lines.

Most business houses today - and I would not be shocked if the US government does also - use computer modelling to identify how many access points are required to server their customers, it's why when you walk into a bank for example, you will never find all the booths manned, when it fills up, temporary staff are assigned, now can the US government do the same?

Which is all well and good except that every time I've gone through it was *significantly* longer to do preclearance than it has ever taken to clear in the US, even at alleged problem airports like MIA and JFK. My average entry time in the US has always been under no more than 20 minutes (even before GE) while my experiences pre clearing in Canada and AUH were all at least an hour. Heck, in one case I got to the airport almost 4 hours before departure time and still barely made it to the gate in time and another I was extremely irritated at having to get up at about 2:30am to ensure that I had enough time to get to the airport and preclear for an 7:30am-ish flight from YUL. It could take just a few minutes or it could take an hour, I have no idea of knowing for sure until I'm actually at the airport especially since the problem is compounded by dealing with both standard security and the preclearing. If I miss my domestic connection in the US because I'm stuck in immigration then odds are another flight will be leaving in not too long which is not necessarily the case when starting in another continent where all of the flights bound for the US might be leaving around the same time.

Like I said earlier, it's my personal opinion on it as a passenger and I realize that my opinion is just one of many. But if it was somehow possible to opt out (I'm speaking hypothetically) and do it all in the US side, even if that means potentially longer lines at the US port of entry, then that would be my choice.

EU countries are going to be very skittish about sharing data with the Trump administration (which has indicated it doesn't expect to consider non-US citizens' privacy rights, among other things). I wonder if that has any impact.

One big advantage of pre-clearance, from a passengers point of view, is that you clear immigration and customs before boarding the flight, when you're relatively more fresh, and thereafter are quite tension free....if you're arriving at a US airport after a flight lasting anything more than 4 hours or so, and do not face the prospect of standing in long immigration lines and facing a grumpy US immigration officer at your destination, that itself is a big advantage....

KTPAFlyer wrote:

rwsea wrote:

I have horror stories from lots of countries that make entering the US seem like a dream by comparison.

Care to enlighten us?

LHR is a good example. You can stand in line for hours on any given day. LGW is rarely better.

Flaps wrote:

Having done pre-clearance at YYZ, YYC, YEG and NAS I don't see any benefit to it. You have to go through the whole routine at some point anyway. I would just as soon do it in the US. Perhaps if you reside outside the US it may be different but as a US citizen it doesn't seem worth it

But if you have a transfer at the US airport, with pre-clearance at your origin, you don't have to go through security again at the next airport. When you have to go through customs at the US port of entry, you do, adding net time to your trip.

I understand why Canada has preclearance. But is anyone trying to fly nonstop AMS-MCI or the like? I don't see the point of having it in AMS and I don't know what they would gain to benefit from this.

The main benefit of pre clearance is that if you have a connection in the US, you don't need to go through arrivals and re check your bag, adding time and stress to a journey.

DCAfan wrote:

YYZ is the second busiest gateway to the US after LHR and preclearance works there.

The problem for the airlines is if a passenger is denied entry to the US by CBP, the passenger takes the next flight back to, in this instance, AMS at the airline's expense including possible denied boarding compensation to another revenue passenger.

Actually, it can be far worse. In Canada, if an airline brings someone into Canada that is inadmissible, the airline is also fined thousands of dollars, and is on the hook for the entire cost of sending the person back.

I've heard from a former CBSA officer that in one extreme example Air Canada was forced to pay for one inadmissible passenger:
1. the cost for 2 RCMP officers to escort the person back
2. When the person was denied entry back in that country due to insufficient documents (caused by that country's embassy in question), the costs for a flight to bring the entire party back to Canada, and then;
3. the cost for a charter flight to send the person back with RCMP escort, plus the plane tickets to bring the RCMP escort back.

In total, I was told the bill to Air Canada was easily in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Flaps wrote:

Having done pre-clearance at YYZ, YYC, YEG and NAS I don't see any benefit to it. You have to go through the whole routine at some point anyway. I would just as soon do it in the US. Perhaps if you reside outside the US it may be different but as a US citizen it doesn't seem worth it

If you're flying YYZ to ORD there is no advantage to preclearance. In fact it's a disadvantage, because it's one more step before boarding that adds time and risk of missing a flight, and forces you to arrive earlier at the airport. If it adds time on arrival it doesn't really matter, at least as far as missing a flight.

But if you're flying YYZ to ORD to a connecting flight elsewhere, it's a huge advantage. Without preclearance you have to wait for your bags, clear customs, leave security, re-check your bags, and re-clear security. WIth preclearance your bags are transferred and you go to the gate for your connecting flight as with any domestic flight.

AMS is one of the largest transfer hubs in Europe. AMS is an excellent place for onward connections, as everything is handled in one efficient terminal. AMS is well known for allowing very short connection time. Many flights from AMS to the US leaves around 9:00 to 10:30 in the morning.

If AMS have preclearance, that benefit of short and efficient connection time would be lost. You would need to add at least 1 hour in AMS. Many early morning flights from all over Europe would then arrive to late for allowing onward connections to the US.

Preclearance is a positive thing if your onward connections are on the US side, if it's on the EU side it's negative. Flying OSL-AMS-SEA, preclearance at AMS will be a huge inconvenience. Flying OSL-JFK-SEA, preclearance in OSL makes onward connection in JFK go smoother, and with less chance of losing you connection etc.

Preclearance in a EU transfer hub like AMS, doesn't make sense.

Getting back to the original topic… I decided to search about for more in-depth articles. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything with real detail. The best I could glean was that the decision to withdraw from the talks was announced in the Dutch parliament during a session where they were discussing Trump's immigration ban. I couldn't find anything definitively stating that the decision to withdraw from talks on pre-clearance was, in itself, a politically motivated decision. I could find nothing directly connecting the two things.

It's entirely possible that the withdrawal from talks happened for other reasons. Lack of practical space at AMS now, and in future terminal developments? The cost-benefit analysis just didn't work out, as far as the Dutch were concerned? The USA was demanding some conditions which the Netherlands felt it couldn't meet? I'm just saying this decision may not have been political at all.

IPFreely wrote:

Flaps wrote:

Having done pre-clearance at YYZ, YYC, YEG and NAS I don't see any benefit to it. You have to go through the whole routine at some point anyway. I would just as soon do it in the US. Perhaps if you reside outside the US it may be different but as a US citizen it doesn't seem worth it

If you're flying YYZ to ORD there is no advantage to preclearance. In fact it's a disadvantage, because it's one more step before boarding that adds time and risk of missing a flight, and forces you to arrive earlier at the airport. If it adds time on arrival it doesn't really matter, at least as far as missing a flight.

But if you're flying YYZ to ORD to a connecting flight elsewhere, it's a huge advantage. Without preclearance you have to wait for your bags, clear customs, leave security, re-check your bags, and re-clear security. WIth preclearance your bags are transferred and you go to the gate for your connecting flight as with any domestic flight.

Between Canada and the US there is an advantage, hence why most major Canadian airports offer pre-clearance and incentives for frequent travelers- such as NEXUS or Global Entry. YYZ has a special area for US departing flights and it is typically quite efficient. If you have NEXUS or Global Entry, the process is even faster.

I also disagree that it forces you to arrive at the airport earlier. Canada-US is an international flight and most airlines will enforce their 60 minute to departure cutoff time for check-in. Canada is in the minority (along with the US) for countries that do not practice exit control with immigration; pre-clearing US customs in Canada is no different then exit control leaving, say Germany to the US.

For me personally- and I fly between Canada-US quite frequently, I'm happy to arrive Stateside and head directly out of the airport instead of waiting in line at customs.