The UK is in the process of rolling out an Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA) requirement for foreign visitors. This was implemented as of January 8, 2025, for those with passports from many countries (including the United States), and will be added for those with passports from the European Union as of April 2, 2025.
With this, travelers have to complete an application and pay a £10 fee prior to travel, and the ETA is valid for up to two years. Well, the UK is already backtracking on a major aspect of this, and I can’t say I’m surprised…
In this post:
International transit passengers don’t need an ETA
When the UK introduced its ETA requirement, the government insisted that transit passengers would also need to apply for this. That’s a bit unusual, since the UK allows sterile international transit, and in most countries, you don’t need an ETA if simply in international transit (even if there’s otherwise an ETA requirement).
I have to imagine that this caused some challenges for airlines (particularly British Airways and Virgin Atlantic), since many travelers probably didn’t realize they needed to apply for an ETA, especially if in transit. Well, the government is now backtracking on this requirement:
Following feedback from the aviation industry, the government has agreed a temporary exemption for passengers who transit airside, and therefore do not pass through UK border control.
This move will primarily affect Heathrow and Manchester airports, as the only UK airports which currently offer transit facilities. The exemption will be kept under review.
It’s not entirely clear to me if this exemption is being introduced effective immediately, or if this still requires formal government approval. Also, while this is being described as a “temporary exemption” as of now, many believe that this will be a permanent change, to line up with the policies of many other countries. That brings us to the second point…
UK ETA fee to increase by 60%, from £10 to £16
Clearly the UK is realizing how much revenue it will lose from its ETA scheme if transit passengers are exempt, so now the plan is to increase the fee for those who do have to pay it. The government has proposed a change whereby the cost of an ETA would increase by 60%, from £10 to £16.
This is being voted on at the moment, and it’s not clear when this will be implemented. While that might not be a huge increase in absolute terms, it definitely adds up, especially if you’re traveling as a larger group. And that says nothing of the UK’s very high Air Passenger Duty (APD), which impacts visitors to the country.
The UK has marketed ETAs as being about increasing safety, and being able to screen travelers before they arrive. Also, obviously there’s some significant cost to administering this program. But still, one wonders if this increase is to actually cover the cost of the program, or to simply boost the profit margin from this scheme.
Bottom line
It seems that the UK’s widespread rollout of ETAs isn’t going as smoothly as planned. The government is now backtracking on the requirement for transit passengers to get an ETA, assuming they plan on staying airside. I’m not surprised to see this change, given that I imagine this ended up being quite complicated for airlines.
However, obviously the UK doesn’t want to lose out on much revenue, so now the plan is to increase the ETA fee from £10 to £16, for those who do need it.
What do you make of the changes to the UK ETA scheme?
Flew through LHR on Sunday. At check in at BCN - even in the (Europe) Business line - lots of folks were enraged (usually at their partner) for not knowing about the ETA. The check-in agents were getting earfuls from travelers taken off guard. And it was holding up ALL the check-in lines as pax were incredulous about how and why this was being implemented. I felt terribly for the contracted check-in folks who were...
Flew through LHR on Sunday. At check in at BCN - even in the (Europe) Business line - lots of folks were enraged (usually at their partner) for not knowing about the ETA. The check-in agents were getting earfuls from travelers taken off guard. And it was holding up ALL the check-in lines as pax were incredulous about how and why this was being implemented. I felt terribly for the contracted check-in folks who were on the receiving end of the grief. Seems it was very poorly marketed as a requirement to infrequent travelers.
Are we surprised that the UK has f'ed up the details of their ETA and now has to walk something back? Of course we are not, we'd be surprised if it was well thought through.
Canada and NZ require their ETA even for sterile international transit so it's not without precedent, but good news that the UK government has eased it
Yeah that doesn't justify it because it is stupid and causes a lot of unnecessary issues.
Some may find this UK government website useful: …..
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/electronic-travel-authorisation-eta-factsheet-january-2025/
How early can you purchase (…at the current rate)? Does the two years of validation begin from purchase or use?
Thank you!
You can apply for it whenever (do not need to have travel planned), it just needs to be at least 3 days before a trip (I had my confirmation in 10 minutes). It's 2 years from when you receive the confirmation.
One notes that someone (Ben perhaps?) has used my posts as ‘click-bate’ for the colonial elements who read these comments.
One is definitely amused and welcomes a challenge.
I find this ETA malarkey weird.
The UK is supposed to be part of the Five Eyes security alliance with the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. If there is intensive intelligence sharing between these 5 countries, why should Americans, Canadians, Aussies and NZers have to obtain an ETA? Further, the ETA is to be valid for 2 years. Suppose an American ETA holder goes rogue after a year. How will the ETA system...
I find this ETA malarkey weird.
The UK is supposed to be part of the Five Eyes security alliance with the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. If there is intensive intelligence sharing between these 5 countries, why should Americans, Canadians, Aussies and NZers have to obtain an ETA? Further, the ETA is to be valid for 2 years. Suppose an American ETA holder goes rogue after a year. How will the ETA system capture this fact?
The situation with EU nationals is even more bizarre. Till Brexit happened, rogue Europeans could be caught through intelligence sharing. All those sharing arrangements now gone?
I think the UK has gone into overdrive trying to make the country unwelcome for tourists. Or is that the unstated objective?
You know the US ESTA is valid for two years as well?
You do realize that Australia has had their scheme for over 20 years, the US and Canada for about the last 10. This is hardly some off-the-cuff idea the British came up with. I’m not defending these schemes (while they have their merit, they’re largely a cash grab), if anything, the British were the exception in the Anglosphere in NOT having a scheme in place.
Of course, the US pretty much has stated its objective is to be as unwelcoming to tourists as possible.
I honestly think that this whole business of electronic travel authorizations is total nonsense, regardless of the country. It's pretty much a return back to the visa system, only 21st century-style. Much like we don't need to go to the bank anymore to deposit a check, but the essence is the same. So, the countries, which agreed back in late 20th century to drop visa requirements, reintroduced them again. At least that's the gist of...
I honestly think that this whole business of electronic travel authorizations is total nonsense, regardless of the country. It's pretty much a return back to the visa system, only 21st century-style. Much like we don't need to go to the bank anymore to deposit a check, but the essence is the same. So, the countries, which agreed back in late 20th century to drop visa requirements, reintroduced them again. At least that's the gist of it
As far as the technical side of the question, it's unlikely that with the current flow of tourists it makes such a huge difference whether you file two days ahead or your passport is scanned by the airline at the airport. I think it's sheer nuisance to do any advance filing of this stuff
It is a real mess because if you fly to Ireland and drive into the UK via Northern Ireland, then there is no border control at all and you can enter the UK without an ETA. This kind of system should be introduced for all countries in the "common travel area" not just one country taking a unilateral decision (UK and Ireland have borderless access, similar concept to Schengen but just for UK and Ireland).
About a decade ago I swore off flying through the UK, given the high air taxes, miserable and depressing state of their no-frills airports (for example, having to pay for what should be complimentary hotel shuttle buses), and just the general malaise of what the UK feels like. This just further cements it in my mind.
Trust me Eric, you have not been missed. England will be a green and pleasant land when all the tourists go home.
Which tourists?
I was in England outside London during Christmas holidays, there were no international tourists at all. In the flight, it was 99% Brits.
Agree with Eric, between the foggy weather, the homeless people in tents on the main square of Manchester, lack of life and the limited heating in public places... I am generally a fan of remote/not not touristy places like Tadjikistan, Mozambique, Kiev prior to the war.. But I...
Which tourists?
I was in England outside London during Christmas holidays, there were no international tourists at all. In the flight, it was 99% Brits.
Agree with Eric, between the foggy weather, the homeless people in tents on the main square of Manchester, lack of life and the limited heating in public places... I am generally a fan of remote/not not touristy places like Tadjikistan, Mozambique, Kiev prior to the war.. But I don't think I was ready for the level of despair that is Northern England.
The non-implementation of a transit tax cemented your decision to not transit at these airports?
I would understand the reverse situation leading your conclusion but this...
Ha. I wonder if there were many like me that chose to cancel their BA flights since it connected through LHR. I booked Swiss Air direct instead.
I flew MIA > LHR > ZRH last night (jan 16th).
at the AA flagship kiosk at MIA, they could not check me in without proof of the UK ETA. thankfully i had purchased one last month for a trip later this spring, but both myself and the agents were confused as i was only transiting through the UK on this trip.
That's exactly my question, Morgan (are you listening, Ben)? While this a welcome move -- for transiting flyers, will it lead to even more confusion. Which connecting LHR passengers transit vs. entering the UK in order to change terminals, etc.? Are ALL international connections at LHR made post-security, even if a change in terminals is involved. We'll be flying AA from JFK to LHR and connecting there on BA to CDG; will I need a UK ETA? How will I know?
Do you not know the difference between security and passport control/immigration?
Yes all international arrival passengers can remain post security, just follow the flight connections signs, if you are changing terminals you will be put on a bus and transferred.
That is incorrect. Was flying through LHR on Sunday BCN-LHR-ORD and we absolutely had to re-clear security. This has been the case for years. I've lost many sticks of deodorant, SOLID deodorant, to LHR security when transiting from the US to other parts of Europe.
The standard security checks are in the sterile area, he will not need to go through to landslide for connection and under the revised changes will not need an ETA.
@DCAWABN that's because when transiting to the United States, you're required to reclear security. The US has slightly different security requirements for US bound flights. If I fly within Canada and have a connection to the United States, I have to go through security again at the connecting airport. For your example, if I were to fly BCN - LHR - YYZ, I would only go through security at BCN.
>>if I were to fly BCN - LHR - YYZ, I would only go through security at BCN
No, you would go through security at LHR also. This is because the UK does not trust the security of other countries.
If you were to fly BCN-MUC-YYZ then you would not clear security at MUC, this is because Germany trusts the security of other EU countries.
This has been the case for the past 20 years or more and nothing to do with brexit.
@rlku2 fair enough, LHR was a bad example.
Which brings up another point. If I fly into LHR/MAN on BA and then have a separate ticket on RyanAir I'm effectively a transit passenger but BA would be at risk if they let me fly without the ETA.
this is just way too messy.....
The UK needs to base it more on reciprocal behavior. If a country doesnt let people from the uk use egates, they should be blocked too. If a country requires UK passports to pay fees for transit, they should be required to as well.
Yes, an eye for an eye. Sounds like a very intelligent and mature way to go about policy making.
UK, and specifically England, is a failing empire so they have no power for reciprocity. They should be lucky that us Americans want to visit their shithole country.
If you plan on coming here with that kind of attitude, then I'd rather you didn't.
As soon as you said "us" and not "we", everyone knew which nationality was going to follow.
Unfortunately frrp, your comment has drawn some ill informed responses from an anti-English, rude, crude and revolting individual.
That kind of attitude is not acceptable or welcome in any civilised society.
Good thing I registered last week and paid the 10 GBP. It was easy and it took 5 min on the app. Received an approval in 1 minute. American living in Berlin and travel to The UK often. Went through the auto gates @ MAN airport last week Fri, no issue whatsoever.