Originally Posted by
EYBusdriver
No access because they choose not to fly there.. . .
BTW hardly any joining pax, most are connections generally from India and Pakistan.
So, does AUH-US need more frequency, or does India-US and/or KHI-US need more frequency?
It seems, by your own admission, AUH isn't a origin for USA passengers (except you, of course). And THAT is precisely why only 1 airline serves this route with only 2 flights a day.
Originally Posted by
satpak77
you know, even a junior high school Economics student could tell you ALPA's argument is BS
Originally Posted by
trenttdk
Some worrying replies here. Most, as pointed out by satpak77, would fail a basic economics course.
Supply and demand - that's 'junior high economics', right? There is no supply issue. Current DHS staffing in JFK and ORD can easily process 556 passengers (the full capacity of 2 Eithad A340-600's - yes, I counted the seats, and that's being generous, since the ORD route is on a 777 right now, I believe). With only 2 flights a day, there is no demand issue here to address either. For anyone who's gone through C&I as a revenue passenger in JFK or ORD behind a 747, you can clearly see the demand formula that DHS uses is on the lean side. 556 passengers is not going to meet the trigger to open a new pre-clear.
Originally Posted by www.thenational.ae
Setting up the system would be complicated and costly, and there were no plans at the time to expand to other airports such as Dubai, said Ms Napolitano. "Let's get it in Abu Dhabi - these are big things, and they are expensive - and we'll see where we go from there," she said.
Cost-wise, the host country will shoulder some expenses, but not all. $3.5M was budgeted for DHS's
Immigration Advisory Program in Abu Dhabi this year as part of DHS's 2012 budget. Say the US staffs 21 agents there (6 agents to process 46 passengers per flight, plus 6 agents to do baggage screening, 4 agents to to investigation, 4 agents to supervise - seems way too lean for the US government, but, suppose these very conservative #'s were accurate). The current ME & I OCONUS rate for Abu Dhabi is $186/day. That's almost $1.5 million just in per diem annually. Add in lodging and imminent danger pay (yes, Abu Dhabi qualifies), and we get a total of over $4M in costs each year, just so that Eithad can pre-clear 2 flights of connecting Indians and Pakistanis to the US, on top of the $3.5M we spent this year. These costs are starting to add up, no?
This is the same issue the F-35 program has. It's not the start-up costs, it's the costs over the life of the program that are the big player.
As the New York Times reported in June 2012:
Homeland Security officials acknowledge that the United States cannot control security in every airport in the world. The focus, they said, was on expanding an American presence at airports with a significant number of United States-bound flights.
That is where the focus should be, "expanding an American presence at airports with a
significant number of United States-bound flights.". Abu Dhabi, with 2 flights and less than 600 travelers per day, is a waste of US taxpayer's resources.
So far, the main cheerleaders for this issue on this forum are 2 UAE based pilots, and a pilot who wants his ride home to be easier (also UAE based, but at least open about his motives).
Where the US 5th fleet makes port calls or where US Air Force assets are deployed has nothing to do with this discussion.