On Sep 10, 5:21*am, "tim...." wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...
On Sep 9, 10:05 pm, Jeremy Double wrote:





Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:33:48 on Fri, 9 Sep
2011, tim.... remarked:
I think they believe the Heathrow Connect/HEx free shuttles fulfil
that
need.

I think they do reasonably well, the only downside being the lower
frequency.

Quite a few people use the airside buses, which are rarer in the USA.
I'd
like to say "unknown" but they do exist, I saw one at Newark last week
connecting Terminals A[1]&C (both of which have Continental flights).

I would have thought that the US policy of making everybody clear
immigration/customs at first entry point/final exit point restricts the
demand for air side transfers somewhat.

Not when the vast majority of transfers are domestic-domestic. Plus a
few
domestic-international (I didn't clear security when transiting back to
UK through Newark, I stayed airside and the security I did earlier at
the
regional feeder airport was sufficient).

It's only the international-domestic which have that issue.

At most UK airports the majority of passengers are making international
journeys.

Flying Los Angeles to Edinburgh, I have often cleared Immigration in
London, but Customs at Edinburgh. *Very helpful, it saves lugging
cases, et al, around Heathrow.

So people in this country tend to forget that, even at a major
international airport like Newark, the vast majority of passengers passing
through a US airport are making domestic journeys. In the US, airports
serve more-or-less the same role as inter-city railway stations in this
country.

Very much the case at airports like Louisville, KY, or Omaha, NE.

Flying from London to Los Angeles, if the plane touches down at JFK,
one has to go thru everything in New York, Immigration, baggage
pickup, customs check, and agricultural check.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Even more annoyingly if one's travelling LHR to AKL via LAX [1] you have to
pass through US immigration even though you have no intention of ever
entering the country.

I have exactly that issue a few days from now. Travelling to Panama I
have to pass thru US immigration even though I am only "in transit".

This means that someone who doesn't qualify for the visa waver has to apply
for a full visa just to transit the airport.

[1] Which used to be a through service offered by NZ, don't know if it still
is

Ah, Air New Zealand, my favorite airline on which to cross the
Atlantic. They have an old fashioned service ethic

In message , at 13:21:07 on Sat, 10 Sep
2011, tim.... remarked:
Even more annoyingly if one's travelling LHR to AKL via LAX [1] you have to
pass through US immigration even though you have no intention of ever
entering the country.

Although the lack of airside transit means you are in fact entering the
country, however briefly.

This means that someone who doesn't qualify for the visa waver has to apply
for a full visa just to transit the airport.

Indeed. And the Visa Waiver costs money now (via the ESTA scheme). It's
just one more variable to take into account when planning the route.
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
05:33:24 on Sat, 10 Sep 2011, 1506 remarked:
Even more annoyingly if one's travelling LHR to AKL via LAX [1] you have to
pass through US immigration even though you have no intention of ever
entering the country.

I have exactly that issue a few days from now. Travelling to Panama I
have to pass thru US immigration even though I am only "in transit".

Pre 9/11 anyway, it's all about passenger segregation, and whether the
airports have a way to keep transit passengers "international airside"
as well as simply "security checked airside".

This becomes impossible if (as at many USA airports) you have flights
departing to both domestic and international destinations at adjacent
gates.

The economy of scale of having "international gates" doesn't work so
well when their model is to cluster gates by airline rather than type of
destination.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:15:51 on Sat, 10 Sep
2011, tim.... remarked...

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 19:33:48 on Fri, 9 Sep
2011, tim.... remarked:
I think they believe the Heathrow Connect/HEx free shuttles fulfil
that
need.

I think they do reasonably well, the only downside being the lower
frequency.

Quite a few people use the airside buses, which are rarer in the USA.
I'd
like to say "unknown" but they do exist, I saw one at Newark last week
connecting Terminals A[1]&C (both of which have Continental flights).

I would have thought that the US policy of making everybody clear
immigration/customs at first entry point/final exit point restricts the
demand for air side transfers somewhat.

Not when the vast majority of transfers are domestic-domestic. Plus a few
domestic-international (I didn't clear security when transiting back to UK
through Newark, I stayed airside and the security I did earlier at the
regional feeder airport was sufficient).

It's only the international-domestic which have that issue.
--
Roland Perry

.... nothing
--
Roland Perry

"tim." wrote in message


Even more annoyingly if one's travelling LHR to AKL via LAX [1] you
have to pass through US immigration even though you have no intention
of ever entering the country.

This means that someone who doesn't qualify for the visa waver has to
apply for a full visa just to transit the airport.

.... which may be why Air New Zealand now also offers a route via Hong
Kong. There, British citizens don't need a visa at all if staying for
less than 3 months.

In message , Roland Perry
wrote:
I think they believe the Heathrow Connect/HEx free shuttles fulfil that
need.
I think they do reasonably well, the only downside being the lower
frequency.
Quite a few people use the airside buses, which are rarer in the USA.
I'd like to say "unknown" but they do exist,

Completely OT, but I got to use the airside bus at Stansted last week.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In message
, 1506
wrote:
Flying from London to Los Angeles, if the plane touches down at JFK,
one has to go thru everything in New York, Immigration, baggage
pickup, customs check, and agricultural check.

That depends.

BA certainly used to have "set-down only" stops. So the flight from
London to Pittsburgh (IIRC) had a set-down stop at Washington Dulles.
Those passengers to Pittsburgh just stayed on the plane while those to
Washington got off, after which the plane continued on its journey.

I had an "interesting" experience when Dulles was fogged in. Normally
about 90% of the passengers got off in Washington. Pittsburgh had one
short set of rollers (not even a belt) for the luggage and two
immigration officers. For a full 747.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In message , at 11:28:01 on
Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Recliner remarked:
Even more annoyingly if one's travelling LHR to AKL via LAX [1] you
have to pass through US immigration even though you have no intention
of ever entering the country.

This means that someone who doesn't qualify for the visa waver has to
apply for a full visa just to transit the airport.

... which may be why Air New Zealand now also offers a route via Hong
Kong. There, British citizens don't need a visa at all if staying for
less than 3 months.

Most people I know flying to Australia do it via Singapore.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 11:28:01 on
Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Recliner remarked:
Even more annoyingly if one's travelling LHR to AKL via LAX [1] you
have to pass through US immigration even though you have no
intention of ever entering the country.

This means that someone who doesn't qualify for the visa waver has
to apply for a full visa just to transit the airport.

... which may be why Air New Zealand now also offers a route via Hong
Kong. There, British citizens don't need a visa at all if staying for
less than 3 months.

Most people I know flying to Australia do it via Singapore.

Yes, but New Zealand is some 1400 miles further east, so the optimum
stopover point is different. In particular, the route via the US is
shorter for New Zealand, whereas an Asian stopover is shorter for Oz.
But the US visa for transit requirement tips the balance towards HK
rather than LA.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:44:50 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
Yes, but New Zealand is some 1400 miles further east, so the optimum
stopover point is different. In particular, the route via the US is
shorter for New Zealand, whereas an Asian stopover is shorter for Oz.
But the US visa for transit requirement tips the balance towards HK
rather than LA.

Anyone who spends 24 hours in an aircraft to go to a land full of sheep
and hills must be ****ing insane.

B2003