Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

SWAPA gets it!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

BILL LUMBERG

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Posts
2,074
Now that International is on the horizon...SWAPA gets it!:beer:

This building must have been done, signed and delivered and just waiting for somebody to cut the ribbon while the government decided to sell out airline workers for a listening post. Didn't they just approve this 2 weeks ago. Then again, when I was there in the 90's, they would build a 10 mile road in like 21 days.

Meanwhile jetBlue management does nothing to help....appeasement should reap "rewards". Maybe a scope clause is needed......and a bargaining agent.:angryfire




DUBAI, United Arab Emirates ? Passengers traveling from the United Arab Emirates to the USA will avoid long U.S. Customs lines now that a new pre-clearance facility has opened in Abu Dhabi's airport, officials said Sunday, although the development has drawn criticism from U.S. pilots and members of Congress.
Critics allege the decision to open the facility was made mainly on the basis of funding offered by the UAE, which pays 85% of the costs associated with the operation, including the salaries of U.S. Customs and Border officials.
In exchange, travelers may be lured to fly from Abu Dhabi direct to the USA on Etihad Airways, the UAE's national carrier and sole airline flying non-stop between the two locations. The facility does not process cargo.


The U.S. has pre-clearance passenger facilities throughout Canada, in four Caribbean locations and Ireland. The new facility in Abu Dhabi, which allows passengers to complete U.S. customs and immigration before boarding flights to the USA, is the Middle East's first. It is also the first pre-inspection arrangement to be enacted with another country since the 1980s.
U.S. Embassy spokesman Jeffrey Ladenson told The Associated Press that the first flight using the U.S. Customs and Border Protection preclearance inspection took off Friday from UAE's capital city of Abu Dhabi for Washington Dulles airport.
Some U.S. lawmakers and domestic airline associations were angered because they say the decision gives competitive advantage to Etihad over U.S. airlines, which don't fly direct between Abu Dhabi and the USA.
In a statement to the AP, Etihad said that additional flights to the U.S. will be processed via the facility in the coming days. The state-backed airline currently operates non-stop daily flights from Abu Dhabi to New York, Washington, D.C. and Chicago. It plans more routes this year to Los Angeles and Dallas/Fort Worth.


The airline has codeshare partnerships with JetBlue Airways and American Airlines that allow passengers to fly on routes operated by both carriers on a single ticket.
The Air Line Pilots Association said on its website that it opposes the Abu Dhabi facility because only Etihad benefits from the agreement. Long customs lines at airports already are hurting U.S. airlines and passengers from Asia or Europe could opt to fly Etihad over U.S. carriers to avoid those lines, it added.
The Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association similarly raised questions about why Abu Dhabi airport was chosen, saying Friday that the traffic rate there for U.S.-bound passengers is less than a mere 200 per day on average, "making this a poor investment of U.S. taxpayers' increasingly limited resources."
One of the world's busiest airports, and the Middle East's largest, is in nearby Dubai, which does not have a U.S. Customs pre-clearance facility.
"We are more than willing to compete against any airline in the world, including state-sponsored Middle East entities. However, Middle East entities that already enjoy generous state sponsorship should not receive additional government support from the U.S. taxpayer," Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association President Capt. Mark Richardson said in a statement.
In April, 14 members of Congress signed a letter to the Department of Homeland Security saying that the preclearance facility in Abu Dhabi "sets the dangerous precedent" of deploying customs resources based on third-party financing and "not national security, common sense or the needs of traveling taxpayers." In November, a bill was introduced in Congress to block the UAE facility, saying it "threatens American jobs" by encouraging travelers to use foreign airlines instead of U.S. carriers.
However, at least one U.S. airline backs the idea. JetBlue told USA TODAY's Today in the Sky blog that it was in favor of the Abu Dhabi facility.
"We believe that in addition to the need for an increase in CBP (Customs and Border Control) staffing at key U.S. gateway airports, more preclearance facilities like the one planned for Abu Dhabi are both a vital tool to enhance our nation's security and reduce the number of travelers clearing Customs at already delayed entry points ? and that ultimately reduces wait times for everyone else," JetBlue said in a statement to Today in the Sky.
"We have many customers today who arrive from Abu Dhabi on our partner Etihad Airways who then continue their journey on JetBlue flights across the U.S.," the airline continued. "Preclearance would allow them to make faster connections state-side and get on with business. The less hassle travelers have coming into the country, the more visitors will come and that's good for all of us in the travel industry."
Also in defense of the facility, president of the U.S.-U.A.E. Business Council Danny Sebright wrote in July that government and airport authorities in Abu Dhabi have made it clear to U.S. airlines that they are welcome to fly to and from Abu Dhabi's International Airport to tap into this new preclearance program.
The opinion piece, which was published on The Hill's Congress Blog, argued that the program is good for travelers and saves the U.S. government money.
___
USA TODAY reporter Ben Mutzabaugh contributed to this report from Washington. Additionally, Associated Press writer Adam Schreck contributed to this report.
 
Bill,

SWAPA has been on this for quite awhile (and working with ALPA/APA), so you trying to link SWAPA to today's international announcement by Southwest makes you look clueless. But carry on nonetheless.

Southwest aside, it's in the best interest of all US carriers to fight this. Whether they go international or not. I don't think SW is going to the Middle East anytime soon....so why would we care? Same with the Norwegian proposal (SWAPA is there as well). Because it's a US issue, not a carrier issue.
 
Last edited:
Hey Red,

Call me whatever you want....clueless, sure? Happy?

I was just pointing out that you guys are onboard even though some of you have made issues with ALPA "wasting time" leading the charge as if "what? me worry?". If you feel you wanna go dukes up, have at it, I won't play. Congrats on the new expansion BTW.

Throttle back, you aren't talking to GL.
 
I will throttle back Bill. It's really the reporter that linked the two. But neither one has anything to do with the other. SWAPA has been working on this about as long as ALPA has.

I never thought ALPA was wasting there time here. Maybe it's time we all increase our PAC donations.

I'll also raise a glass that you aren't like GL. Cheers!
 
Gotta look at the big picture. The US can't be against Abu Dhabi having their own C&BP, when they approve what amounts to the exact same strategic advantage to SWA at Hobby. Sucks, but that's how it works.
 
SW building their own terminal is the same as the a middle eastern Customs pre-clearance?

Yea, I don't think it's even close Flop but thanks for confirming my thoughts on how delusional you are.
 
Think about it Red. SWA is being handed it's own FIS, and has no more exposure to competition than one gate can provide. Abu Dhabi can't be stopped when at the same time SWA is getting as much (or more). Gotta get yourself a worldview of things Red.

What do you think an FIS is?
 
Last edited:
Being HANDED a FIS? Again, delusional Flop.


Your talking about the building that Southwest is PAYING for? You know SW is a domestic flag carrier right? And paying for the structure completely, right?

How many structures has Continental actually PAID for Flop? Not city bonds, not county bonds...but actually paid for?

I'm sure if UCAL wanted to build a terminal with FIS in Lake Charles, LA (and the airport authority/city approved it)......you could have at it. You see how stupid your argument is? I'm pretty sure Southwest management wouldn't put together a campaign to shoot you down either.

Just sour grapes that someone is going to challenge your monopoly in Houston Flop. That's all your whining about. Same as last week, same as next week.
 
First: SWA is not really paying much. $150 million is around the total bill, and you're only paying 2/3rds of that. And yea, you're a flag carrier. That's really not the point however. The point is that paying for something like this is meant to be a red flag. Notice that Abu Dhabi is paying for the C&BP facility.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/today...assenger-facility-opens-in-abu-dhabi/4933747/

That was what the United [CAL] opposition to your terminal was based on in large part. It was a poor choice to approve it. And it's a poor choice for C&BP to be put in place in Abu Dhabi. I would say the Hobby terminal set a bad precedent, but it already had a precedent for being refused in Denver.
 
Last edited:
So in the end, your SW argument is this...

No other non-legacy carrier should be able to get a FIS, even if they pay for it?

Again Flop, completely delusion. And yes, SW is paying for the entire terminal. The city is building the parking deck on their dime. Which we all know is a no brainer on the payback with parking fees.

Your argument here is like Swiss cheese. I believe the US government (your taxes and mine) are paying for the Middle East facility, right? Apples and oranges my friend.
 
Your argument here is like Swiss cheese. I believe the US government (your taxes and mine) are paying for the Middle East facility, right? Apples and oranges my friend.


Look, I realize swapa is a joke when it comes to PAC, so you're generally poorly informed. But at least read what I linked for you. Abu Dhabi is paying a full 85% of the cost of this facility. That's in large part why it was approved. It's just like what SWA did to get their own FIS. You think they didn't get that idea from swa?! Frankly Abu Dhabi is probably paying more of the total percentage of their bill than SWA is at Hobby. You like to rationalize that the parking garage is somehow separate from the airport, but that's BS. What's happening here is the market is being spoiled and certain airlines are being favored. There is no way in hell Abu Dhabi ought to have a pre clearance facility. But it is no less wrong that SWA be granted an FIS in a municipality where the taxpayers built an airport venue intended for all airline competition to take place. What SWA has done is no less bad than what Abu Dhabi has. You've both exploited the market.
 
Again Flop, one more time (because I'm done with your delusional argument).....

Who should be able to build a facility on there own dime within the US and operate internationally? Anyone? Only UCal?

You get how crazy your argument is right?

We'll be operating out of Hobby, FLL, ATL and most likely STL and PHX. You okay with that, or should we check with you first?

PS - Denver might be in play as well. You see our new terminal expansion in Concourse C?

I'm out brother. You can see black helicopters all you want.
 
Bye Red. Hey, why don't you read some stuff instead of mouth on here all day. Come back with at least a functional knowledge of the Abu Dhabi facility.
 
Haha. Thanks for evading the basic question, again and again. Abu Dhabi has nothing to do with Southwest. You're not answering the question because you don't have a rational answer.

See ya.
 
Last edited:
I thought you left Red?

I've evaded nothing. It's fundamentally wrong to build a second FIS in a city that does not need another. It is especially wrong to build/approve something like this because one operator is paying for (part of) it. It's bad business. It creates problems. Do you not see that?

Look, you're basically uninformed. A couple posts ago you thought the US taxpayer was building the Abu Dhabi facility. Go learn some stuff.
 
Last edited:
OMG! Did you know Shannon (EINN) also has one of these facilities.... In other words, who cares! Abu Dahbi having one of these really doesn't affect us much. US pax will not go out of their way and reroute themselves to save 30 min in customs. There may be some pax from India and Pakistan who may want to clear customs there, but that's about it. Will US pax go there to go to Europe via AUH? Nope. How about to Asia? Nope, too far. Does it make sense to have US Customs in AUH? Not really, but it really doesn't affect US pax except to India. It is a great talking point, though!


Bye Bye---General Lee
 
I thought you left Red?

I've evaded nothing. It's fundamentally wrong to build a second FIS in a city that does not need another. It is especially wrong to build/approve something like this because one operator is paying for (part of) it. It's bad business. It creates problems. Do you not see that?

Look, you're basically uninformed. A couple posts ago you thought the US taxpayer was building the Abu Dhabi facility. Go learn some stuff.

The facility in Abu Dhabi is partially being funded by the US taxpayer (something like 15%). However, the biggest gripe is that since no US carrier services the affected routes, that basically the US government is pushing business away from US carriers and to a foreign one. Even if they didn't use a dime of taxpayer money, it still hurts US commerce.

Building a second international facility in a US city is nothing like this. Plenty of US cities have multiple international gateways (Miami, NYC, LA, Chicago, etc), especially as metroplexes grow. You referring to Houston by saying, "... in a city that doesn't need another..." is just a red herring. The people who actually live in Houston would love increased international opportunities and competition. This HOU growth will allow international competition between US carriers, and spur more growth of US flying in the Houston area. The fact that it cuts into Unical's virtual international monopoly in Houston bears no relation, and Unical's (and your) pathetic argument against Southwest flying international out of HOU is just an attempt to keep your monopoly at the expense of the flying public.

Hey, your airline is welcome to fly out of Hobby if it wants to, Flop. It was also welcome to expand internationally out of Hobby. The big difference was, that if it was Unical who offered to build a facility at HOU, we wouldn't have whined to high heaven about it. We probably would have just smiled, then leased the available gate that you paid for, and when our business grew, we would have expanded the facility into whatever size we needed. And that's the main difference between your airline and mine, Flop: we compete by putting our product against other airlines', and servicing the customers who like us better. You "compete" by attempting to hobble and obstruct other airlines, and service the customers who use you because they have no other choice.

Bubba
 
Last edited:
HOU to Bush Intercon= 30 miles
LAX to SNA=40 miles

I'm not seeing how 10 miles makes or breaks weather a metroplex needs another FIS, it's airport dependent, nothing more, nothing less.
 
The facility in Abu Dhabi is partially being funded by the US taxpayer (something like 15%). However, the biggest gripe is that since no US carrier services the affected routes, that basically the US government is pushing business away from US carriers and to a foreign one. Even if they didn't use a dime of taxpayer money, it still hurts US commerce.

Building a second international facility in a US city is nothing like this. Plenty of US cities have multiple international gateways (Miami, NYC, LA, Chicago, etc), especially as metroplexes grow. You referring to Houston by saying, "... in a city that doesn't need another..." is just a red herring. The people who actually live in Houston would love increased international opportunities and competition. This HOU growth will allow international competition between US carriers, and spur more growth of US flying in the Houston area. The fact that it cuts into Unical's virtual international monopoly in Houston bears no relation, and Unical's (and your) pathetic argument against Southwest flying international out of HOU is just an attempt to keep your monopoly at the expense of the flying public.

Hey, your airline is welcome to fly out of Hobby if it wants to, Flop. It was also welcome to expand internationally out of Hobby. The big difference was, that if it was Unical who offered to build a facility at HOU, we wouldn't have whined to high heaven about it. We probably would have just smiled, then leased the available gate that you paid for, and when our business grew, we would have expanded the facility into whatever size we needed. And that's the main difference between your airline and mine, Flop: we compete by putting our product against other airlines', and servicing the customers who like us better. You "compete" by attempting to hobble and obstruct other airlines, and service the customers who use you because they have no other choice.

Bubba


Listen Bubba, it's hardly a red herring description at all. There were and are 6 gates open at IAH. Perfectly situated right in the IAB international terminal. All funded by users and taxpayers that understood that would be the market. Nuff said.

Much more fitting a red herring description is how you characterize Houston's support of the new terminal. Houston wants the promise that was made. 1.6 billion boost to the economy, 10,000 jobs, and a $130 ticket to Bogota. Fail to make those things happen in the not too distant future and we'll see how much support remains for your terminal. Beyond that, what a lot of Houston fliers want to know is where else might the City benefit from SWA's new found interest here? Answer: No where; No where it's needed for sure. They get it. You're here to cash checks and that's it. Apparently you only read things here, because enthusiasm for SWA in Houston has already started to wane.

Unical competes for international customers at IAH with about a dozen airlines. And we built gates for even more competition. You guys? Yea, you've fled the competitive market and stacked the deck in your own favor. We don't "hobble" competition. Another red herring on your part.

Speaking of Bogota, looks like we have to wait for that. SWA isn't straying too far from what the Air Tran guys have already done. Good start IMO, I really would prefer to not see any screw ups. It will become a lot more interesting when Hobby routes including Mexico are announced. Because your Hobby terminal is literally worse for Mexico's airlines (in particular) than the Abu Dhabi facility is for all US airlines. (Do you actually think it's ok to say to the competition they can fight over 1 gate, or build their own?!)

We've had all these discussions before*. What continues to amaze me is how SWA pilots think their airline can do anything it wants, and others should abide by rules? These things have a cost and a reaction. We couldn't expect that advantaging SWA in Houston, because they got out their checkbook, would go unnoticed. Now there's a C&BP pre clearance facility in Abu Dhabi. Thanks guys!

*Can we maybe keep this to under 40 pages? Maybe stick with just the questions: Should SWA be treated special? Did something change when we chose to put aviation interests up for sale?
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top