US wants intl pax to sit in plane 1 hour prior to takeoff

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:00:30 +0000, in rec.travel.air, Martin D. Pay
wrote:
[snip]

Or more likely, bring check-in forward a further hour and make
passengers sit in the departure lounge for longer. This would
mean checking in 5 hours before departure time for flights from
the UK to the US.

5 hours? Last year I flew twice to the US, once from Heathrow, once from
Birmingham, checked it 2 hours before with no problem.



Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:10:43 +0000, Doug Weller
mangled uncounted
electrons thus:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:00:30 +0000, in rec.travel.air, Martin D. Pay
wrote:
[SNIP]
Add this measure to the
termination of the Visa Waiver Program in October 2005 and the
sheer inconvenience and cost of having to obtain visas (if you
live 250 miles from London, getting a wife and 3 kids to the US
Embassy for a 9.00am interview isn't exactly a minor logistical
exercise, not to mention the 5 x UKP 60 application fees).

Is that to do with this?
"Congress has extended the deadline for the inclusion of biometrics in
VWP-country passports until October 26, 2005. This does not affect the
current requirements for machine-readable passports."

The visa waiver program isn't being terminated. This extension was
because no one had passports ready for the biometrics requirements. I
guess if the UK doesn't have such passports soon, and everyone else
does...

That's the one. Perhaps 'termination' was the wrong choice of
word, but that's *effectively* what is happening in October this
year. After 26 October '05 a UK citizen will need either a full
biometric passport - which the UK won't have available until 2007
at the earliest by our beloved government's own admission, so
realistically it'll probably be nearer 2010/2012 - or a full visa
of the appropriate sort (tourist, working, and so forth) in order
to enter the US.

Martin D. Pay
I still think a reciprocal arrangement for US citizens visiting
the UK would not be such a bad idea...

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:10:43 +0000, Doug Weller
mangled uncounted
electrons thus:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:00:30 +0000, in rec.travel.air, Martin D. Pay
wrote:
[SNIP]
Add this measure to the
termination of the Visa Waiver Program in October 2005 and the
sheer inconvenience and cost of having to obtain visas (if you
live 250 miles from London, getting a wife and 3 kids to the US
Embassy for a 9.00am interview isn't exactly a minor logistical
exercise, not to mention the 5 x UKP 60 application fees).

Is that to do with this?
"Congress has extended the deadline for the inclusion of biometrics in
VWP-country passports until October 26, 2005. This does not affect the
current requirements for machine-readable passports."

The visa waiver program isn't being terminated. This extension was
because no one had passports ready for the biometrics requirements. I
guess if the UK doesn't have such passports soon, and everyone else
does...

That's the one. Perhaps 'termination' was the wrong choice of
word, but that's *effectively* what is happening in October this
year. After 26 October '05 a UK citizen will need either a full
biometric passport - which the UK won't have available until 2007
at the earliest by our beloved government's own admission, so
realistically it'll probably be nearer 2010/2012 - or a full visa
of the appropriate sort (tourist, working, and so forth) in order
to enter the US.

Martin D. Pay
I still think a reciprocal arrangement for US citizens visiting
the UK would not be such a bad idea...

"Martin D. Pay" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:10:43 +0000, Doug Weller
mangled uncounted
electrons thus:


That's the one. Perhaps 'termination' was the wrong choice of
word, but that's *effectively* what is happening in October this
year. After 26 October '05 a UK citizen will need either a full
biometric passport - which the UK won't have available until 2007
at the earliest by our beloved government's own admission, so
realistically it'll probably be nearer 2010/2012 - or a full visa
of the appropriate sort (tourist, working, and so forth) in order
to enter the US.

I understand the rule as:

OR a passport isssued before 26/10/05 (or some other date
that they decide to extend the rule to when they realise how
much money their tourist industry is going to lose)

Thus the visa requirement only affects people as their current
passport expires

tim

Martin D. Pay
I still think a reciprocal arrangement for US citizens visiting
the UK would not be such a bad idea...

"Martin D. Pay" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:10:43 +0000, Doug Weller
mangled uncounted
electrons thus:


That's the one. Perhaps 'termination' was the wrong choice of
word, but that's *effectively* what is happening in October this
year. After 26 October '05 a UK citizen will need either a full
biometric passport - which the UK won't have available until 2007
at the earliest by our beloved government's own admission, so
realistically it'll probably be nearer 2010/2012 - or a full visa
of the appropriate sort (tourist, working, and so forth) in order
to enter the US.

I understand the rule as:

OR a passport isssued before 26/10/05 (or some other date
that they decide to extend the rule to when they realise how
much money their tourist industry is going to lose)

Thus the visa requirement only affects people as their current
passport expires

tim

Martin D. Pay
I still think a reciprocal arrangement for US citizens visiting
the UK would not be such a bad idea...

"Martin D. Pay" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:10:43 +0000, Doug Weller
mangled uncounted
electrons thus:


That's the one. Perhaps 'termination' was the wrong choice of
word, but that's *effectively* what is happening in October this
year. After 26 October '05 a UK citizen will need either a full
biometric passport - which the UK won't have available until 2007
at the earliest by our beloved government's own admission, so
realistically it'll probably be nearer 2010/2012 - or a full visa
of the appropriate sort (tourist, working, and so forth) in order
to enter the US.

I understand the rule as:

OR a passport isssued before 26/10/05 (or some other date
that they decide to extend the rule to when they realise how
much money their tourist industry is going to lose)

Thus the visa requirement only affects people as their current
passport expires

tim

Martin D. Pay
I still think a reciprocal arrangement for US citizens visiting
the UK would not be such a bad idea...

tim wrote:
OR a passport isssued before 26/10/05 (or some other date
that they decide to extend the rule to when they realise how
much money their tourist industry is going to lose)

I am not sure USA politicians see foreign tourists as an important
source of economic activity. Their idea of tourism is a family hiring a
large air conditioned RV and driving through USA interstates to visit
their own country.

Consider that Florida, perhaps the one state most dependant on foreign
tourism, voted for Bush this time around, even thoigh that regime has
instituted so many policies to turn away foreign tourists.

So tourism from abroad doesn't seem to even be an issue in the USA. In
fact, you'll often hear many americans say they are glad those
foreigners aren't coming to the USA anymore because they are so dangerous.

tim wrote:
OR a passport isssued before 26/10/05 (or some other date
that they decide to extend the rule to when they realise how
much money their tourist industry is going to lose)

I am not sure USA politicians see foreign tourists as an important
source of economic activity. Their idea of tourism is a family hiring a
large air conditioned RV and driving through USA interstates to visit
their own country.

Consider that Florida, perhaps the one state most dependant on foreign
tourism, voted for Bush this time around, even thoigh that regime has
instituted so many policies to turn away foreign tourists.

So tourism from abroad doesn't seem to even be an issue in the USA. In
fact, you'll often hear many americans say they are glad those
foreigners aren't coming to the USA anymore because they are so dangerous.

"nobody" wrote in message
...
tim wrote:
OR a passport isssued before 26/10/05 (or some other date
that they decide to extend the rule to when they realise how
much money their tourist industry is going to lose)

I am not sure USA politicians see foreign tourists as an important
source of economic activity.

I think that they do. It is motivation for the one year deferral
that has caused the date to be moved to 10/05.
Without this deferral the rule would already be in place.

tim

"nobody" wrote in message
...
tim wrote:
OR a passport isssued before 26/10/05 (or some other date
that they decide to extend the rule to when they realise how
much money their tourist industry is going to lose)

I am not sure USA politicians see foreign tourists as an important
source of economic activity. Their idea of tourism is a family hiring a
large air conditioned RV and driving through USA interstates to visit
their own country.

Consider that Florida, perhaps the one state most dependant on foreign
tourism, voted for Bush this time around, even thoigh that regime has
instituted so many policies to turn away foreign tourists.

So tourism from abroad doesn't seem to even be an issue in the USA. In
fact, you'll often hear many americans say they are glad those
foreigners aren't coming to the USA anymore because they are so dangerous.

The issue isn't tourism, although it IS important in the U.S. It is
terrorism (or the perceived threat of terrorism). I tend to think that the
administration sees terrorism to be a matter that is of utmost importance,
because the U.S. clearly IS a target for certain parties in the world.
Also, in Florida, there were other factors as well (including the Cuban
Americans who are opposed to any liberalization of the relationship between
the U.S. and Cuba, and who have voted heavily Republican for years.

Frankly, most non-Americans are certainly welcome in the United States; the
government is just making what it perceives to be an extra effort to avoid
another 9-11 here. Unfortunately things have changed, not only for
visitors, but for Americans as well.