Monday, April 2, 2012

What is FATCA not as bad as?

FATCA seems unobtrusive compared to this:
One million British travellers planning to fly to Canada, the Caribbean and Mexico this year face the risk of being turned away at the airport – at the insistence of the US Department of Homeland Security.
...Now the US is demanding passengers' full names, dates of birth and gender from airlines, at least 72 hour[s] before departure from the UK to Canada. The initial requirement is for flights to Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and the Nova Scotia capital, Halifax – 150 miles from the nearest US territory. A similar stipulation is expected soon for the main airports in western Canada, Vancouver and Calgary.
Any passenger who refuses to comply will be denied boarding. Those who do supply details may find their trip could be abruptly cancelled by the Department of Homeland Security, which says it will "[m]ake boarding pass determinations up until the time a flight leaves the gate ... If a passenger successfully obtains a boarding pass, his/her name is not on the No Fly list." In other words, travellers cannot find out whether they will be accepted on board until they reach the airport.
Any objections?



  1. I don't particularly like this but unfortunately as an individual I can only lobby the Canadian government on so many issues at once. What is interesting is the CDN govt already got in a fight with the US over this issue back in 2005. At that time the issue was "domestic" Canadian flight that happened to pass into US Airspace on flight from lets say Halifax to Toronto(a frequent occurrence often over very sparsely populated areas such as Northern ME). A huge brouhaha was created in which Canada strongly implied it could interfere with "Domestic" US flight from places like Minneapolis to Boston that cross into Canada a compromise was reached where Canada would introduce its own "no fly" list which would apply to all Domestic flights. So having said that I don't know where these flights in question would not be using the Canadian list.

    I personally I am not a real fan of these no-fly lists to begin with either in the US or Canadian variety. Its obvious there are way too many people on them which reduces their effectiveness substantially. The main thing I find interesting is when high level public officials such as the US Ambassador to Canada find themselves on them and can't get off.

    I linked below to a pretty funny video from a Canadian TV Show called the Rick Mercer report that shows the current absurdities of flying today from the US to Canada.

  2. I am also a fan of Canada starting look into ways to garner revenue from all of the flight between the US and Europe and the US and Asia that cross into Canadian Airspace for long periods of time. Nothing excessive just a "fair share" for using Canadian territory. Canada along with the US itself do charge over flight fees for flights that do not land or takeoff in both countries respective territory. However, this revenue legally goes to the operation of the Air Traffic Control system(And Canada by international standards provides some of the best ATC services to international overflights). However, when you start talking about taxing airlines CO2 emissions I would argue Canada should get a share of any tax for emissions being made in its airspace.

  3. That last seems like an excellent idea. Love the Mercer report, but the final zinger is brutal: "Transport Canada, a Division of U.S. Homeland Security."