US pre clearance.

 US pre clearance at Manchester. A missed opportunity?

US pre clearance isn’t a new idea for Europe, Dublin and Shannon have had it for a long time. But, back in 2015, Manchester was one of 10 airports selected by the USA for the next phase of its US pre border clearance (USPBC). This was seen as a big coup for MAN, putting it in a list of peers such as Heathrow and Brussels.

Now, out of the context of Covid-19, Manchester actually had a reasonably robust offering to the USA for a regional, non capital, non hub airport. Destinations included Boston, New York JFK, Newark, Orlando, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Sanford, Atlanta,Las Vegas and Houston. Before that, Chicago, Dallas, Charlotte, San Fransisco and Miami also featured. Therefore, one could argue, the facility was warranted off that alone.

The approval for USPBC came at a perfect time for Manchester, it was just about to announce a complete redevelopment of Terminal 2, and USPBC was going to be a crowning feature of this. Manchester were initially very receptive t featuring the facility, making a big song and dance about being shortlisted. Fast forward a few years, and it now seems the idea of USPBC is dead in the water, and we are left wondering why? The airport states a cost to benefit ratio doesn’t make it worth while, but, let’s look at it subjectively.

So, who would have benefitted from USPBC.

3 carriers at the time stood out as good benefactors of this facility. They were Singapore Airlines who operate Singapore-Manchester-Houston and vice versa, PIA who, at the time operated Karachi-Lahore-Manchester-New York JFK-Karachi (now ended) and Biman Bangladesh, who are proposing Dhaka-Manchester-New York JFK and vice versa.

They would have been particular benefactors, because, on their transit stops, all passengers are required to be re-screened , so, while this happens, why not get the formalities of the US customs out of the way at the same time? They could have arrived in the US at a domestic gate, save time for the passengers but also weed out any ‘undesirable’ passengers out before they hit US soil.

The other benefactors would have been the passengers. 

Firstly, Manchester has a large passenger base who connect onwards in the USA. The ability to clear customs in Manchester could have brought US connection times down and thus offer even more choice to passengers. Secondly, those going to Orlando know the queues in MCO are notorious, so imagine being able to clear that line in Manchester and just breeze their way to the car rental pick up on arrival? Then repeat that second scenario at Las Vegas and New York JFK.

What about Global Entry?

Some will argue that USPBC isn’t required as much, as global entry can be just as quick for clearing customs now.

To a degree, yes, they are right, but then consider 3 points.

-Global Entry is more a benefit for regular travellers, whereas USPBC benefits all, including the ‘one off traveller’

-Global Entry isn’t free. It’s $100 per person, so, a family of 4 would need to stump up $400 on top of their holiday price. USPBC is broadly free. Yes, some cost may be added to ticket prices, but not $100 per person. Thus, you need to be a regular traveller to make this cost worthwhile.

-the interview. Global entry requires you to attend an interview with a customs officer. This means either a trip to the US embassy in London, or, one on arrival to the USA, but, getting a slot at that airport to tie in with your arrival can be problematic.

So, Global Entry isn’t the blessing that it’s perceived to be, and to me, USPBC still trumps the former.

Why else would USPBC be beneficial.

There’s no denying Manchester punches above its weight for US flights. Yes, Covid has probably decimated a swathe if it’s market right now, but, it will grow again, eventually.

But USPBC would have given Manchester a very big edge. Look at what it did for Dublin.

The TATL market is competitive. Many Euro airports vying for a slice of the action, but Manchester has a severe handicap that it’s not a hub airport, it’s not a capital city, it isn’t n the middle of a particularly big tourist draw, and has the TATL powerhouses of LHR and DUB each side of it.

USPBC would have given MAN a unique feature. It could have offered a great service to more transit flights. Frequent fliers may have preferred MAN so they can skip the queues at the US end.

Yes, there is a cost to this, but, Dublin clearly thinks it’s worth the money, as do Shannon, Stockholm and now, Brussels. The latter 3 have much less Us traffic than Manchester, yet they saw it as a cost worth bearing. So, what did Manchester see that these 4 airports couldn’t in terms of too costly? Or is it a case of the great northern penny pinching again. You know the old adage ‘speculate to accumulate’. Build it, and they will come.

So for me, it’s disappointing that MAN didn’t follow through with USPBC. They had the means, one would assume they originally had the budget given it was included in the T2 plans, and they had the carriers to utilise it. But what do you think? Is USPBC a waste of time, or a canny business opportunity, let me know!