April 18, 2013 6:38 PM

Dubai Airport Sees Potential For U.S. Customs Post
By Doug Cameron

Dubai's airport authority said Thursday it would welcome any effort by the U.S. to set up a customs post for airline passengers heading to the country from the Gulf emirate.

The world's second-largest international airport after London Heathrow backed an effort to set up a U.S. facility in neighboring Abu Dhabi, partially funded by the Gulf emirate, despite criticism of the move by airlines in the U.S. and Europe, which argued it will distort competition.

Passengers heading for the U.S. would be able to avoid long lines at U.S. airports by pre-clearing customs and immigration in Abu Dhabi, the dominant partner in the United Arab Emirates, which includes Dubai.

"Dubai International is well positioned to be the next port of call for U.S. preclearance," the airport authority said in an emailed statement.

"Any development that eases travel and improves convenience for passengers traveling between the U.A.E. and the U.S. is good for both markets."

Any move to open such a U.S. facility in Dubai likely would fan existing tensions between Dubai's Emirates Airline and some U.S. and European rivals.

Emirates Airline is far larger than Abu Dhabi's Etihad Airways, which would be the sole beneficiary of the plan to set up a U.S. customs post at its hometown hub, which isn't served by any U.S. carriers.

Etihad, Emirates and Qatar Airways have been rapidly expanding services to North America over the past two years, connecting passengers through their hubs to cities in Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

Some rivals have claimed they receive unfair government support, a charge the Persian Gulf carriers all have denied.

Abu Dhabi's dominant position in the U.A.E. and Etihad's smaller scale compared with Emirates may hinder any push for Dubai to secure a U.S. customs post, according to industry experts.

The effort to establish a post in Abu Dhabi, confirmed Wednesday by the U.S. Customs Border Protection agency, drew sharp criticism from U.S. and European airlines.

A4A, which represents U.S. carriers, protested that Abu Dhabi shouldn't qualify for a post, citing Customs and Border Protection Agency requirements that an airport needs to handle more than 400,000 passengers a year to the U.S. and be served by a U.S. carrier.

Etihad noted in a statement Thursday that the facility would aid passengers traveling with its code-share partner, AMR Corp.'s American Airlines. Etihad has a minority stake in Ireland's Aer Lingus and already funnels passengers to the U.S. through Dublin, which also has a U.S. customs pre-clearance post. It also developing an alliance with India's Jet Airways, which announced plans Thursday to launch more flights to Abu Dhabi.

Dubai also played up the role of U.S. carriers, noting in its statement that it is served by United Continental Holdings Inc. and Delta Air Lines Inc.

With U.S. carriers and the U.S. Air Line Pilots Association ratcheting up attacks on the Abu Dhabi decision, the Obama administration in recent weeks has revised its justification for setting up the facility, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department began stressing that vetting U.S.-bound passengers in Abu Dhabi, instead of on U.S. soil, will end up enhancing national security. Proponents of the facility also have said it is necessary to more effectively control plants and animals coming into the U.S.

Customs and Border Protection had no immediate comment. The agency also operates overseas pre-clearance facilities in Canada, Ireland and the Caribbean. No time scale has been revealed for opening the proposed Abu Dhabi facility.

-Andy Pasztor and Amirban Chowdhury contributed to this article.
Write to Doug Cameron at [email protected]

White House Defies Congress in Striking Deal to Open Customs Facility in Abu Dhabi

By Nathan Hurst, CQ Roll Call

In defiance of recent congressional direction, the White House has struck an agreement to open a Customs and Border Protection preclearance facility at Abu Dhabi’s airport in the United Arab Emirates, according to lobbyists and congressional aides briefed on the matter.

The decision sets up a potential showdown with Congress over opening the new facility, which will allow travelers to clear U.S. customs before getting on their planes. Critics, including a coalition of American business and labor interests that oppose the facility, say it would unfairly advantage UAE government-owned Ethiad Airlines at U.S. taxpayer expense.

The agreement was finalized Monday, ahead of a working lunch President*Barack Obamahosted Tuesday afternoon with UAE Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed at the White House, according to the aides and lobbyists. Spokesmen for the White House and Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Under the cost-share agreement, the UAE would pick up about 80 percent of the cost, with the U.S. government paying the balance. The agreement contradicts recent action by Congress to prevent such a deal.

A provision in the fiscal 2013 continuing resolution (PL 113-6) enacted last month specifically barred the administration from entering “into agreements to expand or begin to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection services outside of the United States.”

That provision was added after senators in both parties discovered language in an earlier draft of the continuing resolution to authorize foreign companies to pay for new overseas customs and inspections facilities. Sens.*Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and*Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., drew up an amendment to bar the foreign-financed facilities. The resolution was revised before it came to the floor to bar the foreign-subsidized customs facilities, making the Brown-Isakson amendment unnecessary.

But in briefings with industry officials, administration officials claimed to have “existing budgetary authority” to enter into the agreement. Airline industry lobbyists said Customs and Border Protection officials specifically cited authority allowing “reimbursable free agreements with persons for preclearance of animals” and “for preclearance of plants, plant products, biological control organisms, and articles outside the United States for movement into the United States.”

Customs and Border Protection, however, justifies the new facility as part of its anti-terrorism efforts, lobbyists briefed on the plan said. Officials told industry representatives that opening a preclearance facility to inspect passengers and their baggage before boarding a flight to the U.S. was a matter of “operational security in the region,” allowing officials to keep potential threats out of the country instead of waiting to bar them from entering once they land on American soil.

Homeland Security officials told industry lobbyists they viewed Abu Dhabi’s airport as a “high-risk transit hub” that warranted greater security attention. But opening another foreign checkpoint facility could help ease lines at busy international gateways in the United States.

U.S. air carriers strongly oppose the new facility, arguing they would be disadvantaged because none of them fly to Abu Dhabi. James Hogan, Ethiad’s top executive, has repeatedly said opening a preclearance facility at the Abu Dhabi hub was a crucial business goal, and has pressed Zayed and other UAE officials to make it a priority when dealing with U.S. counterparts.

Currently, Customs and Border Protection operates 15 foreign preclearance facilities in Canada, the Caribbean and Ireland. At least 40 percent of passenger traffic at those facilities is moved by U.S. carriers.

“This offers them a significant competitive advantage over U.S. carriers in attracting customers seeking to fly from Asia or the Middle East to the United States,” Lee Moak, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, the nation’s largest pilots union, said in a Tuesday message to his members.

The union is joined by the trade group Airlines for America, Airports Council International - North America and others in opposing the facility. Nick Calio, the president and chief executive of Airlines for America, in a statement called the agreement a “‘pay-to-play’ scheme” that “sets a dangerous and unauthorized precedent and harms U.S. citizens, jobs, the economy and the global competitiveness of the U.S. airline industry.”

Also opposing the facility is a coalition of labor groups, including the AFL-CIO’s Transportation Trades Department, Teamsters, the Transport Workers Union and the Association of Flight Attendants.

This administration is violating the budgetary law of the 2013 continuing resolution with this preclearance facility. I guess the next step would be to take them to court.

Pics or it didn't happen.:D

Free Starbucks house blend today before noon...

Apc is even good for clipping coupons.

In other news, the DHS/CBP is in the final stages of an agreement to set up a pre clearance facility in Chechnya:(

Hear This
 

I used to give to the PAC back when ALPA had my back. They lost me and my PAC contribution when they went against the majority vote and supported the age 65 rule change anyway.:mad: Sour grapes????....yeah....I guess. And I'm an old guy too. One that will most likely have to work past age 60 now.

I know, and I knew it as soon as I hit submit, but my darn kids started waking up so I had to go deal with that.

Carl;
Point of clarification.

ALPA has not endorsed any candidate since Clinton. Prater supported Obama for his first term run, but not ALPA.

In fact, ALPA and the ALPA-PAC are "Pilot Partisan" and that means supporting a candidate or Congressperson based on views not political party.

Further, ALPA was the only labor organization that was not invited to the White House earlier this year after the start of POTUS's second term. Not good or bad, just was not invited because ALPA believes so strongly in supporting the right issues not a particular political party.

ALPA is the third highest PAC supporter of Republican Candidates, why? They support our views.

Go check out Pilot Partisan | Advancing a pilot partisan agenda in Washington, D.C. and Ottawa

Very good to know. Thanks for the information. I think many folks do not understand this and believe that all unions support dems.