DHS Will Now Vet UK Air Passengers To Mexico, Canada, Cuba

First time accepted submitter illtud writes "From April, UK passengers flying to Mexico, Eastern Canada or Cuba will have to submit their details at least 72 hours before boarding to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for pre-flight vetting (as all passengers to the U.S. itself have had to do for a while). If they find against you, you're not getting on the plane, even though you're not going to the U.S. The Independent (UK quality newspaper) has the story."

Comments

Re:Haha, good one.

[s0litaire]

Guess you never seen the date of the article in question

was posted on "March 26th"

If not A'Fools, airpace may be the key word

[QuasiSteve]

The article starts out with...

New rules require British Airways and other airlines flying to certain airports outside America to submit passengers' personal data to US authorities. [...] Even if the flight plan steers well clear of US territory, travellers whom the Americans regard as suspicious will be denied boarding.

Emphasis mine. This statement is what is supposed to re-assure us that it's ridiculous.
( Not to say that it isn't, but keep reading... )

Washington has extended the obligation to air routes that over-fly US airspace, such as Heathrow to Mexico City or Gatwick to Havana.

Emphasis again mine. So here's the twist. If you fly through a particular nation's airspace, are you 'steering clear of' that nation's territory?
Wikipedia (don't worry, dictionaries appear to agree) states...

"Airspace means the portion of the atmosphere controlled by a country above its territory, including its territorial waters or, more generally, any specific three-dimensional portion of the atmosphere."

Emphasis once again mine.

Their airspace, their rules. Some flights not too long ago were probably barred from entering Polish airspace as well and had to skim along its borders for its flight.
( http://twitter.com/#!/flightradar24/statuses/128071958293266432 )

It's still ridiculous because it makes little sense. Not just because of the notion that you wouldn't actually set afoot in said territory, but because the few cases in which you might (such as an emergency requiring diverting to one of that nation's airports) also apply to many other routes that don't cross that airspace but still come close enough for the pilots to decide to, or be forced to, land there - security clearance issues or no security clearance issues.

Re:Already happening

[shutdown -p now]

The news here is that this now applies to flights that do not go through US airspace. From TFA:

"Even if the flight plan steers well clear of US territory, travellers whom the Americans regard as suspicious will be denied boarding."

In particular, flights from UK to Halifax don't touch US airspace (check the map).

Re:April fools?

[whoever57]

All these planes are landing in the US (a fact the summary conveniently leaves out just to stir the pot, and send you up.

The article does not just leave that out, it contradicts it, and goes further, mentioning that it applies to flights that do not enter US territory, so do you have a citation that this only applies to flights that actually land in the US?

Re:Huh?

[spasm]

German? Riiight..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWII_Casualties#Charts_and_graphs

Re:Emigration vs Immigration control

[Idarubicin]

Direct flights that do not enter US Airspace would not be affected.

No, you're quite mistaken. While the U.S. previously only demanded passenger information for flights entering U.S. airspace, this new policy now covers flights that never overfly U.S. territory. The article notes that direct flights from the UK to the Canadian cities of Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto are affected, and the U.S. authorities intend to include western Canadian destinations in the near future.

Re:Emigration vs Immigration control

[budgenator]

These passengers are flying to the US, regardless of their final destination. As such they will likely be in a plane full of US citizens, over US cities. I suspect that in all these cases the plane will land in the US before continuing to their destination.

Direct flights that do not enter US Airspace would not be affected.

Are you sure?; the article

New rules require British Airways and other airlines flying to certain airports outside America to submit passengers' personal data to US authorities. The information is checked against a "No Fly" list containing tens of thousands of names. Even if the flight plan steers well clear of US territory, travellers whom the Americans regard as suspicious will be denied boarding. Planning a trip to Canada or the Caribbean? US Immigration may have other ideas...

doesn't seem to back that up. It's highly possible the a liberal British tabloid might be sensationalize something more reasonable, or at least making one of the TSAs outrageous intrusive hare-brained ideas even more outrageous and intrusive than it is.

Re:Emigration vs Immigration control

[dryeo]

These passengers are flying to the US, regardless of their final destination. As such they will likely be in a plane full of US citizens, over US cities. I suspect that in all these cases the plane will land in the US before continuing to their destination.
No, they've been doing the TSA thing on planes flying over US territory for a while. This is planes flying to places like Halifax, 150 miles from the States according to TFA, soon to come to all major Canadian airports. The shortest route from the UK to Canada, especially the west, is over the arctic.
Basically this is America intruding on other countries sovereignty. As a duel Canadian and UK citizen they can stop me from traveling simply between the two. I don't think there are many ocean liners anymore and from experience I can say it can be a crappy way to spend a week.