DOCSLIB.ORG

Border Restrictions to Contain Covid-19

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Border Restrictions to Contain Covid-19 BORDER RESTRICTIONS TO CONTAIN COVID-19 A review of international approaches Genevie Fernandes Mariana Soto Pacheco Prerna Krishan Sandhya Narayanan Diva Fanian COVID-19 POLICY SERIES GLOBAL HEALTH GOVERNANCE PROGRAMME 29 May 2020 2 A review of international approaches on border restrictions to contain COVID-19 Summary: On 29 May, the Guardiani reported that 12% or 2000 immigration staff at UK’s ports and airports were sick with COVID-19 symptoms between in the first three months of this year, with more than half absent before the lockdown was imposed. Between January and March, UK recorded 23.7 million arrivals by air, land and sea, including 18.1 million arrivals by air. In early March, UK also saw an influx of COVID-19 cases rising from 85 at the start of the month to 32276 by 31 March. Despite the rising number of cases and the high footfalls of incoming visitors, UK is one of the few countriesii that has not yet adopted any major border control measures. Although, since early March, if any passenger in a flight to the UK, declares symptoms, a general aircraft declaration (GAD) must be submitted to allow for a public health risk assessment and any required action to be taken before disembarkation,iii and in early April, British Airways grounded all its flights from Gatwick Airport, and Heathrow Airport suspended all flights from one runway. It was only on 22 May, that the UK government announced that starting from 8 June, inbound passengers entering the country will have to complete a contact locator form, undergo a 14 day self-isolation and face spot checks by authorities, along with a fine of £1000 upon breaching this mandatory measure.iv What have other countries done so far with respect to their international borders? We reviewed government advisories, updates from the international air transport association, and news reports, and summarise the international border control–related responses of 27 countries from across Europe, North America, Latin America, South Asia and East Asia. Except for Mexico, all the countries have closed their international air borders since March or early April. Most countries (21) have done so partially, still permitting nationals, residents and certain exempted individuals to enter, while 6 countries (4 in Latin America and 2 in South Asia) have completely suspended international flights. The two countries in South Asia with complete international border closures i.e. India and Pakistan, have started operating their own repatriation flights. International flights in most countries are set to resume in early June. Spain will resume international flights in July, while Venezuela and Argentina will resume international flights only in August and September respectively. Six countries have not yet announced dates for reopening borders for international flights. Except for Brazil, all countries have adopted a host of screening measures at their international airports and these include: (number of countries that have adopted a measure): o Thermal screening for temperature checks (6) o Screening passengers for any symptoms through the use of questionnaires or health declaration forms (10) o Mandatory completion of a health declaration form which indicates the health status of the passengers including presence or absence of symptoms (7) o Mandatory completion of a contact locator form that provides the passenger’s contact details in the event of contact tracing or checks on mandatory self-isolation (5) o Mandatory submission of health certificate prior to boarding and upon arrival the country. This certificate indicates that the passenger does not have any symptoms or has tested negative for COVID-19, and can be obtained from the Consular Offices or online (4 – Bangladesh, France, Nepal and Pakistan) 2 3 So far, we only found reports of mandatory testing for all incoming passengers at the international airport in South Korea. All passengers entering South Korea with no symptoms are tested in walk- through testing booths at the airport, while symptomatic passengers are escorted to a separate section of the airport for testing and further steps include hospitalisation or isolation in a government facility. Additionally, Pakistan has planned to test incoming passengers for COVID-19 as soon as possible on arrival at a quarantine facility. Except for Mexico, all countries require incoming passengers to isolate for 14-day period and seek health advice and care upon developing symptoms. We did not find any quarantine-related information for Sweden. Passengers entering Norway have to follow a 10-self isolation at home, while in Venezuela, passengers that are suspected to have COVID-19 have to quarantine for a 30- day period. Most countries require passengers to self-isolate at home; government facility is offered in case passengers do not have access to a local address. In Latin America, most of the countries require passengers to quarantine in hotels or facilities organised and paid for by the government. We found reports of fines imposed for breaching quarantine in Colombia and Italy (£360-£2700). Violating mandatory quarantines in Colombia and South Korea can also lead to imprisonment. Overall, most countries reviewed, have acted early in adopting border control and screening and isolation measures. East Asian countries in particular have extensive screening measures in place, including mandatory testing in South Korea, while Latin American countries have will reopen their international air border much later than their counterparts in Europe. While these international border control and screening measures are a critical response for pandemic control, we will also need to protect airport staff particularly those at higher risk of exposure, by providing adequate personal protective equipment, training, and organisational support. See table 1 for a snapshot of the international air border control measures taken by countries. Note for Table 1: A partial ban means that all travellers are prohibited from entering the country with the exception of nationals and residents and certain individuals that meet a criteria such as diplomats or nationals of a few selected countries. A complete ban implies prohibiting all individuals from entering the country. Screening measures at airports can include thermal scanning of all passenger for fever monitoring, completion of passenger contact locator form for future contact tracing if required, and screening of all passengers for symptoms. It is important to note that while many countries screen passengers for symptoms, in some cases, they do so proactively, and in most cases, this is done when a patient notifies authorities about their symptoms. Quarantine measures include a 14-day self-isolation for passengers at home or a government facility, and a fine on breaching the quarantine in some countries. See tables 2-6 for a detailed description on international and domestic border control measures in countries in East Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America and South Asia. 3 4 Table 1: A summary of air border control measures by countries Region Country International Screening at airports Quarantine for air flights passengers Europe Denmark Partial ban Screening of 14-day isolation at 13 March – 1 June passengers for home symptoms Germany Partial ban Passengers to 14-day isolation at 16 March – 15 complete a contact home June locator form Finland Partial ban Screening of 14-day isolation at 19 March – Until passengers for home further notice symptoms France Partial ban International travel 14-day isolation at 16 March – Until certificate before home further notice departure to France and sworn declaration of health status Italy Partial ban Screening of 14-day isolation at 16 March – 15 passengers for home/ June symptoms government facility and breach fine (£360-£2700) Norway Partial ban Screening of 10-day isolation at 15 March – 20 passengers for home August symptoms Spain Partial ban Passengers to 14-day isolation at 16 March – 1 July complete a contact home locator form Sweden Partial ban No info available No info available 18 March – 15 June North US Partial ban Screening of 14-day isolation at America 16 March – 1 July passengers for home symptoms Canada Partial ban Passengers to 14-day isolation at 18 March – 30 complete a contact home June locator form Latin Argentina Complete ban Passengers to 14-day isolation at America 27 March – 1 complete a contact hotel (cost borne September locator form by government) Brazil Partial ban No screening measures 7-day isolation, and 30 March – 28 May 14-day isolation on symptoms Chile Partial ban Passengers to 14-day isolation at 18 March – 30 complete a contact home/ hotel (cost June locator form and sworn borne by declaration of health government) status. Colombia Complete ban Screening of 14-day isolation at 23 March – 31 passengers for home and August symptoms fine/imprisonment on breaching isolation 4 5 Region Country International Screening at airports Quarantine for air flights passengers Latin Ecuador Partial ban Screening of 14-day isolation at America 15 March – 1 June passengers for government facility symptoms / hotel Mexico No restrictions Thermal scanning and No quarantine screening of measures passengers for symptoms Peru Complete ban Screening of 14-day isolation at 16 March – 30 passengers for hotel (cost borne June symptoms by government) Venezuela Complete ban Screening of 30-day isolation for 14 March – 12 passengers for suspected cases June symptoms South Bangladesh Partial ban Health certificate 14-day isolation at Asia 24 March – 15 obtained within 72 home June hours prior to arrival indicating COVID-19- free status Bhutan Partial ban No info available 21-day isolation at 30 March – Until facility / hotel (cost further notice borne by government) India Complete ban Screening of 14-day isolation at 23 March – Until passengers from government further notice repatriation flights for facility/hotel (cost symptoms and borne by individual) classification into high/mod/low risk. Nepal Partial ban Thermal screening, and 14-day isolation at 14 March – 14 submission of a swab home June test PCR health certificate issued a maximum of seven days before arrival to the country.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AVIATION Disaster Litigation and Investigations
    AVIATION Disaster Litigation and Investigations Attorney Advertising Our attorneys litigate diverse and complex cases for plane crash victims and their families throughout the world and injured crash survivors, as well as people who have suffered as a result of aviation security, safety, or passenger rights violations. At Motley Rice, our goal is not only to seek justice and compensation for our clients, but we also seek accountability from defendants and improvements in aviation safety and security standards. We give our clients a voice when they feel the most vulnerable. MARY F. SCHIAVO Licensed in DC, FL, MD, MO, SC JAMES R. BRAUCHLE Licensed in SC Our Approach At Motley Rice, our goal is not only to seek improvements in aviation safety and security standards through our civil justice system but also to give our clients a voice at a time in their lives when they feel the most vulnerable and to win for them the compensation they are owed and the changes they deserve. At Motley Rice, we work to help aviation disaster COMPASSION, GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT survivors and victims’ families, as well as victims We understand the pain, confusion and questions that of passenger rights violations and other safety and often follow tragic events and know that many clients security violations. feel overwhelmed by the emotional circumstances Our aviation attorneys have experience handling a which brought them to us. While coping with the loss wide variety of aviation cases. We recognize that of a loved one or the devastation of a permanent injury, survivors and family members of victims have many survivors and family members face numerous other concerns following an aviation disaster and may face obstacles such as medical expenses, loss of income considerations of complex legal rights and actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Flight Inspection History Written by Scott Thompson - Sacramento Flight Inspection Office (May 2008)
    Flight Inspection History Written by Scott Thompson - Sacramento Flight Inspection Office (May 2008) Through the brief but brilliant span of aviation history, the United States has been at the leading edge of advancing technology, from airframe and engines to navigation aids and avionics. One key component of American aviation progress has always been the airway and navigation system that today makes all-weather transcontinental flight unremarkable and routine. From the initial, tentative efforts aimed at supporting the infant air mail service of the early 1920s and the establishment of the airline industry in the 1930s and 1940s, air navigation later guided aviation into the jet age and now looks to satellite technology for direction. Today, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provides, as one of many services, the management and maintenance of the American airway system. A little-seen but still important element of that maintenance process is airborne flight inspection. Flight inspection has long been a vital part of providing a safe air transportation system. The concept is almost as old as the airways themselves. The first flight inspectors flew war surplus open-cockpit biplanes, bouncing around with airmail pilots and watching over a steadily growing airway system predicated on airway light beacons to provide navigational guidance. The advent of radio navigation brought an increased importance to the flight inspector, as his was the only platform that could evaluate the radio transmitters from where they were used: in the air. With the development of the Instrument Landing System (ILS) and the Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range (VOR), flight inspection became an essential element to verify the accuracy of the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Hindenburg: Last of The1 2 Gtaihi
    www.PDHcenter.com www.PDHonline.org Table of Contents Slide/s Part Description 1N/ATitle 2 N/A Table of Contents 3~96 1 Exceeding the Grasp 97~184 2 Biggest Birds That Ever Flew 185~281 3 Triumph and Tragedy 282~354 4 Made in America 355~444 5 The Future is Now 445~541 6 LZ-129 542~594 7 Flight Operations 595~646 8 Magic Carpet Ride 647~759 9 Oh, The Humanity! 760~800 10 Back to the Future Hindenburg: Last of the1 2 GtAihi Part 1 “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”for? Robert Browning, Poet Exceeding the Grasp 3 4 “...as by certain mechanical art and power to fly; The Dreams of Inventors so nicely was it balanced by weights and put in motion by hidden and enclosed air” Archytas of Tarentura, 400 B.C. 5 6 © J.M. Syken 1 www.PDHcenter.com www.PDHonline.org “…Then we are told of a monk who attempted a flight with wings from the top of a tower in Spain. He broke his legs, and wasafterwardburnedasasorcerer. Another similar trial was made from St. Mark’s steeple in Venice; another in Nuremberg;andsoonԝ - legs or arms were usually broken, occasionally a neck. In the sixteenth century we read of a certain Italian who went to the court of James IV of Scotland, and attempted to fly from the walls of Sterling Castle to France. His thig h was bkbroken; btbut,asareasonfor the failure, he asserted that some of the feathers used in constructing his wings “…Many other trials have there been of the same character.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS; Treas. § 122.25
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS; Treas. Pt. 122 PART 122—AIR COMMERCE 122.44 Crew baggage declaration. 122.45 Crew list. REGULATIONS 122.46 Crew purchase list. 122.47 Stores list. Sec. 122.48 Air cargo manifest. 122.0 Scope. 122.48a Electronic information for air cargo required in advance of arrival. Subpart A—General Definitions and 122.48b Air Cargo Advance Screening Provisions (ACAS). 122.1 General definitions. 122.49 Correction of air cargo manifest or 122.2 Other Customs laws and regulations. air waybill. 122.3 Availability of forms. 122.49a Electronic manifest requirement for 122.4 English language required. passengers onboard commercial aircraft 122.5 Reproduction of Customs forms. arriving in the United States. 122.49b Electronic manifest requirement for Subpart B—Classes of Airports crew members and non-crew members on- board commercial aircraft arriving in, 122.11 Designation as international airport. continuing within, and overflying the 122.12 Operation of international airports. United States. 122.13 List of international airports. 122.49c Master crew member list and master 122.14 Landing rights airport. non-crew member list requirement for 122.15 User fee airports. commercial aircraft arriving in, depart- ing from, continuing within, and over- Subpart C—Private Aircraft flying the United States. 122.49d Passenger Name Record (PNR) infor- 122.21 Application. mation. 122.22 Electronic manifest requirement for 122.50 General order merchandise. all individuals onboard private aircraft arriving in and departing from the Subpart F—International Traffic Permit United States; notice of arrival and de- parture information. 122.51 Aircraft of domestic origin registered 122.23 Certain aircraft arriving from areas in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Aircraft and International Law: Chicago Opus 3'
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 66 | Issue 3 Article 2 2001 Military Aircraft nda International Law: Chicago Opus 3 Michel Bourbonniere Louis Haeck Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Michel Bourbonniere et al., Military Aircraft na d International Law: Chicago Opus 3, 66 J. Air L. & Com. 885 (2001) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol66/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHICAGO OPUS 3' MICHEL BOURBONNIERE Louis HAECK TABLE OF CONTENTS I. CIVIL AND MILITARY INTERFACE ............... 886 II. TREATY OF PARIS ................................ 889 III. CHICAGO CONVENTION AND MILITARY AIRCRAFT ......................................... 893 A. ARTICLE 3(B) ................................... 896 B. ARTICLE 3(D) ................................... 912 1. Content of Due Regard ....................... 912 a. Exegetical Analysis ..................... 914 b. Analysis of the Annexes to the Chicago Convention ............................ 916 c. Analysis of the ICAO Resolutions ...... 922 2. Application of Due Regard ................... 926 a. How is Due Regard Applied? .......... 926 b. Where is Due Regard Applied? ........ 927 c. Methods of Application of Due Regard ................................. 928 IV. CAA-CANADA LITIGATION ....................... 931 A. CAA ARGUMENTS ............................... 932 B. DEFENSE BY CANADA ............................ 934 C. COMMENTS ON THE ARGUMENTS OF CAA ....... 935 D. COMMENTS ON THE CANADIAN ARGUMENTS ..... 941 V. UNAUTHORIZED OVERFLIGHT ................. 946 VI. U.S. DOMESTIC LAW ............................. 948 1 The authors express their appreciation to the following individuals for sharing their thoughts on the subject of this note: ICAO Legal Bureau, Col.
    [Show full text]
  • US Airline Transport Pilot International Flight Language Experiences
    Federal Aviation Administration DOT/FAA/AM-10/18 Office of Aerospace Medicine Washington, DC 20591 U.S. Airline Transport Pilot International Flight Language Experiences, Report 5: Language Experiences in Native English-Speaking Airspace/Airports O. Veronika Prinzo Civil Aerospace Medical Institute Federal Aviation Administration Oklahoma City, OK 73125 Alan Campbell Johns Creek, GA 30022 Alfred M. Hendrix and Ruby Hendrix HCS Consulting Services Roswell, NM 88201 December 2010 Final Report OK-11-0024-JAH NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents thereof. ___________ This publication and all Office of Aerospace Medicine technical reports are available in full-text from the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute’s publications Web site: www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT/FAA/AM-10/18 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date U.S. Airline Transport Pilot International Flight Language Experiences, December 2010 Report 5: Language Experiences in Native English-Speaking Airspace/Airports 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Prinzo OV,1 Campbell A,2 Hendrix A,3 Hendrix R3 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 1 2 3 FAA CAMI Capt. Alan Campbell HCS Consulting P.O. Box 25082 Johns Creek, GA Services Oklahoma City, OK 73125 30022 Roswell, NM 88201 11. Contract or Grant No. 12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Aerospace Medicine Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., S.W.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Airline Transport Pilot International Flight Language Experiences, Report 4: Non-Native English-Speaking Controllers Commun
    Federal Aviation Administration DOT/FAA/AM-10/12 Office of Aerospace Medicine Washington, DC 20591 U.S. Airline Transport Pilot International Flight Language Experiences, Report 4: Non-Native English-Speaking Controllers Communicating With Native English-Speaking Pilots O. Veronika Prinzo Civil Aerospace Medical Institute Federal Aviation Administration Oklahoma City, OK 73125 Alan Campbell Johns Creek, GA 30022 Alfred M. Hendrix Ruby Hendrix HCS Consulting Services Roswell, NM 88201 August 2010 Final Report OK-10-0077-JAH NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents thereof. ___________ This publication and all Office of Aerospace Medicine technical reports are available in full-text from the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute’s publications Web site: www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT/FAA/AM-10/12 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date U.S. Airline Transport Pilot International Flight Language Experiences, August 2010 Report 4: Non-Native English-Speaking Controllers Communication With 6. Performing Organization Code Native English-Speaking Pilots 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 1 2 3 3 Prinzo OV, Campbell A, Hendrix A, and Hendrix R 1FAA CAMI 2Capt. A Campbell 3Hendrix & Hendrix P.O. Box 25082 Johns Creek, GA Consulting Services Oklahoma City, OK 73125 30022 Roswell, NM 88201 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Airline Transport Pilot International Flight Language Experiences Report 2: Word Meaning and Pronunciation
    Federal Aviation Administration DOT/FAA/AM-10/7 Office of Aerospace Medicine Washington, DC 20591 United States Airline Transport Pilot International Flight Language Experiences Report 2: Word Meaning and Pronunciation O. Veronika Prinzo Civil Aerospace Medical Institute Federal Aviation Administration Oklahoma City, OK 73125 Alan Campbell Johns Creek, GA 30022 Alfred M. Hendrix Ruby Hendrix Hendrix & Hendrix Consulting Service Roswell, NM 88201 April 2010 Final Report OK-10-0077-JAH NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents thereof. ___________ This publication and all Office of Aerospace Medicine technical reports are available in full-text from the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute’s publications Web site: www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT/FAA/AM-10/7 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date United States Airline Transport Pilot International Flight Language April 2010 6. Performing Organization Code Experiences Report 2: Word Meaning and Pronunciation 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 1 2 3 3 Prinzo OV, Campbell A, Hendrix A, Hendrix R 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 1 FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, P.O. Box 25082 11. Contract or Grant No. Oklahoma City, OK 73125 2 Alan Campbell, Johns Creek, GA 30022 3HCS Consulting , Roswell, NM 88201 12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Aerospace Medicine Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., S.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Travel Consumer Report
    Air Travel Consumer Report A Product Of The OFFICE OF AVIATION CONSUMER PROTECTION Issued: June 2021 Flight Delays1 April 2021 Mishandled Baggage, Wheelchairs, and Scooters 1 April 2021 Oversales1 1st Quarter 2021 Consumer Complaints2 April 2021 (Includes Disability and Discrimination Complaints) Airline Animal Incident Reports4 April 2021 Customer Service Reports to the Dept. of Homeland Security3 April 2021 1 Data collected by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Website: http://www.bts.gov 2 Data compiled by the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection. Website: http://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer 3 Data provided by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration 4 Data collected by the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Section Page Introduction 3 Flight Delays (continued) Flight Delays Table 8 31 Explanation 4 List of Regularly Scheduled Domestic Flights Branded Codeshare Partners 5 with Tarmac Delays Over 3 Hours, By Marketing/Operating Carrier Table 1 6 Table 8A Overall Percentage of Reported Flight List of Regularly Scheduled International Flights with 32 Operations Arriving On-Time, by Reporting Marketing Carrier Tarmac Delays Over 4 Hours, By Marketing/Operating Carrier Table 1A 7 Appendix 33 Overall Percentage of Reported Flight Operations Arriving On-Time, by Reporting Operating Carrier Mishandled Baggage Table 1B 8 Explanation 34 Overall Percentage of Reported Flight Ranking- by Marketing Carrier (Monthly) 35 Operations Arriving On-Time, by Reporting Marketing
    [Show full text]
  • International Air Service Controversies: Frequently Asked Questions
    International Air Service Controversies: Frequently Asked Questions Rachel Y. Tang Analyst in Transportation and Industry May 4, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44016 International Air Service Controversies: Frequently Asked Questions Summary “Open skies” agreements are a form of international civil air service agreement that facilitates international aviation in a deregulated environment. They eliminate government involvement in airline decisionmaking about international routes, capacity, and prices. Since 1992, the United States has reached 114 open skies agreements governing international air passenger and air freight services. There are two ongoing controversies that are related to open skies agreements. One controversy involves some U.S. network airlines’ and labor unions’ opposition to the expansion of three fast- growing airlines based in the Persian Gulf region—Emirates Airline, Etihad Airways, and Qatar Airways. The U.S. carriers allege the subsidies and support that these three Persian Gulf carriers purportedly receive from their government owners contravene fair competitive practices requirements of their home countries’ open skies agreements with the United States. The U.S. carriers have urged the Administration to freeze the number of flights Gulf carriers operate to the United States and to renegotiate the open skies accords with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Similar protests have occurred in Europe, initiated by Lufthansa Group and Air France-KLM, and organized labor. The other controversy concerns Norwegian Air International (NAI), an airline that is registered in Ireland and plans to operate transatlantic flights to U.S. destinations. NAI’s application has met strong opposition from labor groups and some airlines that allege that NAI violates a provision of the U.S.-EU open skies agreement that governs labor standards.
    [Show full text]
  • The Proposed Multilateral Agreement on Commercial Rights in International Civil Air Transport, 14 J
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Southern Methodist University Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 14 | Issue 2 Article 1 1947 The rP oposed Multilateral Agreement on Commercial Rights in International Civil Air Transport John C. Cooper Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation John C. Cooper, The Proposed Multilateral Agreement on Commercial Rights in International Civil Air Transport, 14 J. Air L. & Com. 125 (1947) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol14/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THE JOURNAL OF AIR LAW AND COMMERCE Volume 14 SPRING, 1947 Number 2 THE PROPOSED MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON COMMERCIAL RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AIR TRANSPORT By JOHN C. COOPER Member, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N. J.; Princeton, A.B., 1909. Member of American Section, CITEJA; consultant on air transport to Library of Congress. Formerly, Vice President, Pan American Airways 1934-45; private practice of law, Jacksonville, Fla. 1911-34; chairman, Committee on Aeronautical Law, American Bar Association 1932-35; chairman, U. S. delegation to Third Inter- national Conference on Private Air Law, Rome 1933; advisor, U. S. delegation, Chicago International Civil Aviation Conference, Nov.- Dec., 1944; chairman, Organizing Committee and Executive Com- mittee, IATA 1945; official observer, first Interim Assembly, PICAO Montreal, May-June 1946.
    [Show full text]
  • CBP-Memo-Carriers-Flight-Diversion
    May 16, 2019 In response to recent flight diversions and industry requests for policy clarification, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is posting consolidated diversion guidance. This will ensure that commercial carriers and the airline industry have a single source that provides critical information on proper procedures for flight diversions. The below summarizes CBP's current policies and procedures for international flight diversions. CBP will issue a Pipeline notification should any changes be made to these procedures; carriers should be alert to any such notifications. This document is intended as clarifying guidance for air carriers. It reflects the position of CBP as of the date of issuance. It does not in any way replace or supersede applicable laws and regulations with which the carrier must comply. International flight diversions can occur for a variety of reasons. These may include, but are not limited to, emergency fuel stops, weather-related stops (inclement weather), mechanical-related stops, a stop due to illness onboard, or other emergency stops to include a stop for terrorist-related incidents, or other exigent circumstances. When an international flight is diverted to a United States destination other than the planned destination, CBP must be notified. Coordination with the appropriate stakeholders is essential to avoid delays that would require travelers to remain on the plane longer than four hours. For international diversions, CBP managers at airports with CBP facilities must establish contingency plans for the following scenarios: 1) CBP traveler processing procedures for diverted flights; 2) CBP procedures when the carrier elects not to disembark its passengers due to imminent flight departure within three hours of arrival; and, 3) CBP procedures for deplaning of passengers to secure areas while passengers await re- boarding in lieu of CBP processing.
    [Show full text]