Traveling to the United Kingdom will soon require an extra step for virtually all visitors, including those from the United States and European Union. While I first wrote about this several months ago, I wanted to provide an update, as travelers can now start applying for this program.
In this post:
UK rolling out widespread Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA)
As it stands, travelers from many parts of the world are able to travel to the UK without pre-registering, thanks to a visa waiver program. However, that will soon be changing, because as of 2025, virtually all foreign visitors (with the exception of those from Ireland) will need to apply for an ETA prior to visiting the UK.
This is already in place for those coming from select countries in the Middle East, like Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. However, soon it will be expanded:
- This will apply as of January 8, 2025, for travelers from many parts of the globe, including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and more; applications have opened as of November 27, 2024
- Then as of April 2, 2025, this will be extended to those from the European Union; applications will open as of March 5, 2025
As this rolls out, travelers will need to pay £10 to apply for an ETA, and each ETA is valid for multiple entries across two years (assuming your passport doesn’t expire in that time period), with no stay being longer than six months. Officially, it can take three working days for an ETA to be approved, though in many cases they’ll be approved faster than that, within minutes or hours.
The process of applying for an ETA should be done through the UK ETA app (which can be downloaded in the app store), and requires providing your passport information and contact details, uploading a photo of yourself, answering questions, and paying a fee. However, if you’re not able to download the app, the process can also be done online.
Officially, these kinds of pre-travel authorizations are intended to give the country a better understanding of who is traveling to the country, to potentially stop any high-risk travelers in advance.
This is annoying, but not a huge deal
The United Kingdom is hardly the first place to require an ETA for travelers from visa waiver countries. It’s something the United States has required from visa waiver country visitors for years, and for that matter, the European Union is rolling out a similar initiative in 2025 (though there’s no official launch date, as the program has been delayed).
£10 isn’t a huge amount of money, and it’s even valid across multiple entries. It pales in comparison to the UK Air Passenger Duty that passengers pay.
However, there’s no denying that it’s mildly annoying to increasingly have to pay these fees and fill out forms before travel. Sometimes traveler forget to do this in advance, and that can cause some serious issues, especially when an instant approval doesn’t come through.
Bottom line
As of early 2025, the United Kingdom will be rolling out an electronic travel authorization requirement for virtually all travelers from visa waiver countries. This can be done by downloading the UK ETA app, and then completing an online form in advance of travel, and paying a fee of £10. Applications are now open, for those who have any trips coming up.
While this isn’t a huge deal, it’s just another minor inconvenience that travelers headed to the UK will have to deal with.
What do you make of the UK rolling out an ETA requirement on a widespread basis?
My relatives are arriving in the UK on December 30th. They will be here until Jan 13th. Do they still require an ETA?
I notice there is no android version of the app
Uk is the country of fees in a so inconvenient currency that makes every little fee a pain
12 euros for literally nothing, added for ex to 7 euros to book the entry in the already paid priority pass lounge + at least 5 euro coffee when you arrive in uk if you don't have a McDonald near
what a sad joke
way better the US with a dollar that at least give a discount to the not so wealthy EU travelers + every cheap thing that US have (fast food, gasoline, etc...)
I applied for 3 ETAs today for my family. Although the pictures of the applicants and passports were a little finicky, it took 30 minutes to get all 3 done. The ETAs start from January 8, 2025 and are valid to January 7, 2027.
Paying a fee to participate in a visa waiver program = discounted visa fee. Euphemism
One more reason to avoid UK. They have the costliest fees as it is (airport departures). Singapore is also getting awful with fees and taxes. Mexico is also ridiculous with arrival fees.
Gee whiz folks, the money grab thing is such a red herring. As of 1 April 2025, the Air Passenger Duty added to you flight out of the UK is £90 for seats with a pitch under 40" to places like the US. Want to raise more money? Do you set up an elaborate ETA system that charges £10 per person per 2 years. Or, do you increase the APD to, say £93 (or £95 or £100)? What idiot does the former, when the cost of the latter is effectively hidden in the airfare?
Just one more step back from seamless travel. And why do seemall of the guys doing those online sites seem to be so eager on making things as difficult as possible?
Exactly. To be clear, I also fault the US for putting ESTA in 2007. It just defeats the purpose of us being free and open countries with strong relationships.
I would argue that the thousands of UK young men that go on drunken vacations that the UK exports every year is more of a risk.
Good, finally payback for ESTAs.
Big deal. When I went to America over a decade ago, I had to pay AND it had to be a credit card, which I didn't have so had to get a friend to do it. Why can't we do the same thing as you do? Stop whining.
The US does it to the EU, the UK and EU will soon mandate it for US citizens. The west is taking a huge step backward!
Meanwhile China and Russia are laughing and winning and they have an oligarch now doing their bidding!
What is hilarious about the UK's ETA is that, at present, the passports of departing pax are hardly ever checked! I wonder if this will finally change?
They don't care when you depart.
What more can they ask, how many pints you drank in UK?
They already have what they need when you entered. By the time you depart they would have access to your tax records and bank accounts if they wanted to.
Why would it?
The US don’t check passports of departing passengers either. I guess they use airline records to ascertain visitors didn’t overstay and have actually left the country.
Strange headline, Ben. Of course “foreign visitors “ includes the US.
Foreign means not from the UK in this context. Do you think foreign always means non-US?
Thank God for (some) middle eastern airlines, I don't have to transit through Europe.
Instead you have to go to middle eastern countries, lols.
If you go via Europe nearly all airports are done in a way you transit without entering the country, so no need to pay. If you rather fly Emirates et al do so but no need to make up wrong reasonings.
And good luck being stranded in Dubai without EU 261.
For anyone flying into or through Heathrow, UK govt should honestly pay the passengers for the pain. Last time we had to wait > 2 hours for our luggage.
what a bunch of entitled people. you do not have the right to enter the UK or any other country just because you have a US passport. they get to set the rules and if you don't like them, then don't go and stop whining
Why is the UK charging American citizens in the name of "border security" when so many have come on boats across the Channel illegally? If anything, Britain has done anything but cut illegal migration. Virtually no one from US, Canada, Japan, Australia, and other countries would deliberately try to abuse the UK's immigration laws to claim asylum. It just seems like Britain joining the bandwagon of other countries enforcing electronic verifications, which just ends up...
Why is the UK charging American citizens in the name of "border security" when so many have come on boats across the Channel illegally? If anything, Britain has done anything but cut illegal migration. Virtually no one from US, Canada, Japan, Australia, and other countries would deliberately try to abuse the UK's immigration laws to claim asylum. It just seems like Britain joining the bandwagon of other countries enforcing electronic verifications, which just ends up giving the keys to more inefficient bureaucracies in a travel process that was once seamless and efficient.
I know I sound outdated in this day and age, but part of what makes free and open societies great is that we have seamless movement of people between our nations. Britain shares good relations with the countries on the ETA list, so why not reward visitors from those nations? Isn't that the purpose of those e-gates at Heathrow, which has allowed me much quicker entry into the UK? Of course we should take border security seriously and punish those who break the law, but we shouldn't put aside common sense in the name of shortsighted security measures.
They can do whatever they want. It's their country.
If they were really interested in doing this in the name of national interest (presumably their intention), may I ask why they did not think of doing this earlier? And as I said, how do you defend penalising travellers from friendly countries (99% of whom abide by the law), while giving a pass to those entering the country illegally across the Channel? It seems like the British government is not getting priorities right.
More...
If they were really interested in doing this in the name of national interest (presumably their intention), may I ask why they did not think of doing this earlier? And as I said, how do you defend penalising travellers from friendly countries (99% of whom abide by the law), while giving a pass to those entering the country illegally across the Channel? It seems like the British government is not getting priorities right.
More ludicrous is adding those connecting. There's almost no threat to UK's borders by those using UK airports (most likely Heathrow or Gatwick) to connect onward. Britain has already repelled enough due to a change in VAT refund policy. Are they just trying to push more away? I thought growth was of paramount importance to the government.
Yeah, my state once required I send in proof of insurance coverage for my licensed vehicle, while making no such request of those who don't register their vehicles. And, they make me take an eye test and pay a fee every 4 years for my drivers license. They require that of unlicensed drivers.
Oh, don’t worry Jay, you barely sound outdated at all!!
More or a racist / bigot / xenophobic vibe? Maybe. But, unfortunately, on this day and age this is a bit of a trend.
The US have required ESTAs for the UK for years. Why should the UK not require the same?
To be clear, frrp, I do also blame the US for this trend of electronic verifications. Shouldn't the US, as a measure of goodwill, be trustworthy of friendly and likeminded nations? We should be making it easier for people in those nations (US, Canada, UK, EU, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, Singapore, etc.). Have we learned nothing from 2 World Wars?
What a brainwashed hypocrite.
Just because some one sets a rule doesn't mean we can't complain about it. If you don't like people whining, then stop reading and go away.
Will you need to get one if youre only transiting through LHR?
Unfortunately yes.
But BA and others are campaigning for a change.
No huge deal? I see it different. Covid is over bit these authorization soreading like infection. Eu,Uk,Korea,japan,Singapore... Im sick of it.
then don't go. it's as simple as that. you are a guest and you don't get to set the rules oh how/when you are allowed to visit.
Another brainwashed hypocrite.
Stop apologizing and defending stupid rules.
The reason people call out is because it's stupid.
Just because some bureaucracy tells you to do something you take it as commandment?
Did you in your life never broke any rules?
Same things happen in the land of the free. Where you're not really free but the propaganda works.
Where did he say he took things as a “commandment” and “never broke any rules”?
Another reason not to visit a has-been Euro backwater with a lower GDP per capita than Mississippi. At least Mississippi has good food.
if you like deep fried food that Jackson airport perpetually stinks of
Deep fried fish and chips doesn't stinks in London.
But LHR perpetually stinks of Aerob13a, a pedophile poop reader.
The idea that the US is better than europe is quite laughable.
It has to be done through an app? What about people who don't own smartphones (Like me)? Apparently, there are directions for those who can't use the app on the link:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-an-electronic-travel-authorisation-eta#apply-for-an-eta
Americans have absolutely zero reason to complain. Taste your own medicine.
Two wrongs don't make a right
@Ben, what does this mean? "It pales in comparison to the UK Air Passenger Duty that passengers pay (though there’s no official launch date, as the program has been delayed)."
The APD's been in place for a while, so what program has been delayed?
Biden should negotiate with the UK to have a reciprocal fee waiver. He should threaten them that Trump will punish the UK if they don't agree.
The reality is that the cost of implementing this is probably far greater than any monies they obtain after. So, for those who are complaining it's a money grab, I doubt it. The sheer cost of management and tech will be exorbitant. Which leads me to believe this is, in fact, an attempt to better manage who is coming in and out of the country.
As a side note. I decided to enroll tonight and get it over with as I am regularly going back and forth to the UK. I'm glad I did not wait until a few days out. The biometric scan will just not work on a U.S. passport. That's fine, it says you can skip after a few tries in lieu of answering further questions. Eventually you will get to the taking a photo of yourself...
As a side note. I decided to enroll tonight and get it over with as I am regularly going back and forth to the UK. I'm glad I did not wait until a few days out. The biometric scan will just not work on a U.S. passport. That's fine, it says you can skip after a few tries in lieu of answering further questions. Eventually you will get to the taking a photo of yourself moment. I followed all instructions as to lighting and background and it refused the photo three times with an eventual message to start over or go online.
This is going to be a nightmare for many. Honestly, I don't care about the process. But given IT in the UK this will become a headache for them in ways they never imagined.
If they have an app like the updated Australia version, I found the picture taking troublesome until I figured out how it works. Not necessarily intuitive, but eventually got the green light.
Not necessarily. In 2024 the uk had nearly 40 million visitors. So they would collect 400 million pounds per year. While the software development is steep up front is mainly a 1 time dev cost. Considering most countries have incredibly bad software using devs from India and having estimated tech projects for decades, their system to implement the software is definitely less than 10 million. More if those Indian outsourcing companies need more kick backs....
Not necessarily. In 2024 the uk had nearly 40 million visitors. So they would collect 400 million pounds per year. While the software development is steep up front is mainly a 1 time dev cost. Considering most countries have incredibly bad software using devs from India and having estimated tech projects for decades, their system to implement the software is definitely less than 10 million. More if those Indian outsourcing companies need more kick backs. The cost of maintenance is probably the highest cost. But there is a limited real time factor to this infrastructure and I just don't see any complicated redundancy so at its current fee, I suspect the uk would still be in the profit. And like most organizations nobody cares or knows how to implement security so they probably spent next to nothing on it. And like most systems of this nature the 10 pounds is obviously their introductory fee so that few will complain. Remember the days of $5-$10 hotel resort fees that are now starting to push $50. We should see the same with this fee over the years. That much I guarantee.
My reasonable proposal has no chance in this political environment, but I'll propose it anyway. Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Shengen, the US sign a pact. Each time I get a new passport, I can go to the "Shared ETA" site, pay a reasonable fee (say $100-$200), and get, if accepted, an ETA for all the above that lasts for the life of that passport.
$100-200 is not reasonable. It should be free among the US, UK, Portugal to Germany plus Scandinavian countries. Poor countries like Romania should not be included.
I'd happily pay $200 per "passport cycle" (8 to 9 years) to only have to do the application only once as cycle. But, in my world, you could opt into the every 1, 2, or 3 year cycle depending on country/region. To each.....
It's a visa.
If you think a "Shared visa" that works globally can exist.
Last for the life of passport is also stupid.
ETA is a money grab scheme. Since they can't make money off of visa waiver visitor. They'll just create a visa that isn't called visa.
No not a visa, an ETA. Not global, but among agreeing nations. If the want to grab money, they can increase the already high tax placed on flights out of the UK. It's easier and provides more revenue by increasing the tax on UK flights to non-European cities by a pound or two than charging €10 per person per 2 years.
UK needs the money, they are broke. Whatever little they had, they gave it away to weapons companies to supply weapons Ukraine and lsrael, in other words siphoned off.
Good insight Ivan. How’s the winter treating you in Moscow?
Sergei you must know it.Why you ask? Its bitter cold
They’re broke because of stupid Brexit so they want to make foreigners pay for it
This fee is preposterous. Just nickel and diming tourists. For this reason i would avoid UK.
Frankly, good. Because the $21 the USA charge for an ESTA is a lot more than the £10 the UK is charging. And because your airports have the most ridiculous way of handling transit passengers you've got to pay even if you don't leave the terminal, so doing the same here balances things out.
And you introduced the ESTA in 2007 so just stop complaining and pay ten quid.
Except the US tax payer pays for your security.
No one asked for the U.S. to be the wannabe global police force lol
I say that as an American citizen lol
Hilarious. You think UK airports security is not funded by taxes?
Yankee exceptionalism to the extreme.
Stay at your gun infested shithole and don’t visit.
I don't see these small fees reducing any country's debt. The U.S. ESTA fee of $21 hasn't paid off any national debt. This low fee may be charged to cover the cost of administering the program, computers, software, etc. The UK taxpayers should not have the burden of this expense, just as the taxpayers of the U.S. should not have the burden of paying for the Visa Waiver Program/ESTA, and therefore charge a fee.
...I don't see these small fees reducing any country's debt. The U.S. ESTA fee of $21 hasn't paid off any national debt. This low fee may be charged to cover the cost of administering the program, computers, software, etc. The UK taxpayers should not have the burden of this expense, just as the taxpayers of the U.S. should not have the burden of paying for the Visa Waiver Program/ESTA, and therefore charge a fee.
Hopefully the use of these programs help to streamline the entry process and allows non-criminal types a faster and smoother entry upon arrival.
For the record, visitors already pay quite some taxes directly (e.g. on goods and services) and indirectly (by supporting the economy).
In other words, visitors are taxpayers as well.
@Jerry Wheen -- It would be nice if the taxes on goods and services, paid directly and indirectly, was enough. Tourist do pay hotel taxes, sales taxes, etc. But based on my 1040, along with my property taxes to pay for police, fire, schools, and other services that all of us benefit from, the taxes on these goods and services are not.
While I understand some may feel that the government should not profit...
@Jerry Wheen -- It would be nice if the taxes on goods and services, paid directly and indirectly, was enough. Tourist do pay hotel taxes, sales taxes, etc. But based on my 1040, along with my property taxes to pay for police, fire, schools, and other services that all of us benefit from, the taxes on these goods and services are not.
While I understand some may feel that the government should not profit form these fees, and I agree, they should at least cover the cost of administering them.
US ESTA fee isn't there to make money (yet). It's enough to cover the cost of surveillance of visitors who wouldn't need a visa but something as close to a visa as possible.
It's a visa.
£10 is not a problem. The fact they can deny this "non-visa" if they don't like something is the problem.
So, we parole a Charles Manson type and they shouldn't be able deny the ETA if he applies and pays? When you look at ETA-type programs, I suspect we find that those who are rejected would have been turned away (if all history is known) at entry attempt at a higher cost ($ and hassle) to all. If, say, 5 out of 10,000 who'd arrive in pre-ETA days arrive and get rejected, and 4 of...
So, we parole a Charles Manson type and they shouldn't be able deny the ETA if he applies and pays? When you look at ETA-type programs, I suspect we find that those who are rejected would have been turned away (if all history is known) at entry attempt at a higher cost ($ and hassle) to all. If, say, 5 out of 10,000 who'd arrive in pre-ETA days arrive and get rejected, and 4 of those five get rejected for the new ETA, you now have to turn around 20% of the old number. That means 4 of 10,000 travelers avoid that crush of arriving and being put on a plane back home.
The issue with ETA is all those intrusive questions no different than a visa application.
The other issue is being denied ETA. Most will never tell you the reason. If you get turned away at the border, they will give you a reason.
And your last part is the irony.
"avoid that crush of arriving and being put on a plane back home."
If you're trying to hide something then you should be...
The issue with ETA is all those intrusive questions no different than a visa application.
The other issue is being denied ETA. Most will never tell you the reason. If you get turned away at the border, they will give you a reason.
And your last part is the irony.
"avoid that crush of arriving and being put on a plane back home."
If you're trying to hide something then you should be expecting "that crush".
If you're honest and just a good faith visitor "that crush" is because you're wrongfully denied.
Is that also necessary if you are a European Passport holder?
Yes, unless it's Irish - EU passports get included a bit later this year.
There are "Visa on arrival" and "e-visa" schemes that are practically the same thing as this, which is why people do think of this as a visa in disguise. Even if it isn't the full process of a normal visa, there is no denying that these electronic travel authorizations are against the spirit of what visa-free travel was all about.
Specially because for many people for decades travel to many of these countries was...
There are "Visa on arrival" and "e-visa" schemes that are practically the same thing as this, which is why people do think of this as a visa in disguise. Even if it isn't the full process of a normal visa, there is no denying that these electronic travel authorizations are against the spirit of what visa-free travel was all about.
Specially because for many people for decades travel to many of these countries was seamless, and with the introduction of things like E-Gates even more convenient...
Visa free travel does not mean: show up with a valid passport and we'll let you in for sure. Some Americans with DUI convictions find that out trying to enter Canada. Why does moving part of the screening to prior to arrival violate the spirit?
@Shiki = 100% correct.
@Dave W - sorry, no cigar.
Dave - what you describe as 'Visa free' is actually (and legally) 'Visa Waiver'. Originally, the purpose of Visa Waiver was provided as a 'courtesy' to a country's allies and where the rate of 'over-stays' from Visa Waiver countries were minimal.
In the USA, Visa Waiver status was originally extended to - IINM - 27 countries out of approx 214 global nations (some 13%)...
@Shiki = 100% correct.
@Dave W - sorry, no cigar.
Dave - what you describe as 'Visa free' is actually (and legally) 'Visa Waiver'. Originally, the purpose of Visa Waiver was provided as a 'courtesy' to a country's allies and where the rate of 'over-stays' from Visa Waiver countries were minimal.
In the USA, Visa Waiver status was originally extended to - IINM - 27 countries out of approx 214 global nations (some 13%) and was 'free' of charge. As a traveller, you still had to fill in an I-94 form on arrival, ensuring that you did not have certain criminal convictions or were guilty of 'moral turpiture' to ensure the integrity of yhe Immigration monitoring. Answering 'Yes' to these two points (among others) would see you turned around at the US entry point and repatriated.
You ask the question "Why does moving part of the screening to prior to arrival violate the spirit?" Its a widely accepted experience statistically, that 99% of Visa Waiver travellers present no problems at Immigration, on entry. By moving to ETA's, the system does become more efficient for inbound processing.
However. the issue here - and the violation of 'spirit' - occurs when you start CHARGING visitors to your country for a service which was previously provided 'free of charge' as a courtesy. In fact, charging for an ETA abrogates the responsibility of the 'host' country and its security protections for its population .. by transferring the cost of security, which is borne by tax-payers and government funding to a 'user-pays' mentality. The whole benefit of encouraging tourism and 'local spend' in a country ie: accommodation, transport, entry fees to attractions, dining, consumer spend etc is to benefit the 'host' country by gaining foreign external revenue ... at minimal costs.
Think of it this way : You invite your six best friends to a cocktail party, where you provide canapes and drinks at your cost (hospitality) VS inviting the same group, providing the same canapes and drinks ... and then asking them to pay $70 per head to cover your costs (not hospitable).
Please note that Thailand is also about to introduce a country-wide ETA - but in their case, it will be provided FOC Free of charge, to almost all categories of visitors. That - my friend - does not diminish Thailand's control of immigration, does not place an impost on visitors to the country, does not alienate visitors - and ensures greater Immigration efficiency. That is the TRUE sense of maintaining the philosophy of Visa Waiver and its intent. Compare that with Brazil's changes to Visa Waiver announced some 6 months ago - and roundly criticized by almost everyone on OMAAT. A 'true' backlash.
So, you get your feathers ruffled over a £10 for two years charge? Whatever money the UK collects for this, they could collect through fees added to airfares. But, that would shift a large proportion to frequent travelers. They choose to do it per person, a fairer match of cause and effect. Despite the grumbling here, it isn't about the money. I may have missed some of your points because of the length of your reply.
@Dave W.
They could collect £10 at the border and stamp a 2 year entry permit on the passport or record it electronically.
And people with DUI getting turned away at the Canadian border rightfully deserves it.
It's your duty to do your due diligence before travel. Same as going to a country that requires visa (ETA) but never applied for one because you don't know.
@Dave W.
No, I didn't "get my feathers ruffled' at all. The cost is somewhat inconsequential. What you fail to understand is the concept of 'principle' here.
Question: When is a free Visa Waiver NOT a free Visa Waiver?
Answer: When its taken away and replaced by a faux chargeable 'visa'.
What you ignore is that this action presents a *precedent*, which most other countries tend to follow. With some 214 possible...
@Dave W.
No, I didn't "get my feathers ruffled' at all. The cost is somewhat inconsequential. What you fail to understand is the concept of 'principle' here.
Question: When is a free Visa Waiver NOT a free Visa Waiver?
Answer: When its taken away and replaced by a faux chargeable 'visa'.
What you ignore is that this action presents a *precedent*, which most other countries tend to follow. With some 214 possible global countries, imagine if every one of them applied this same action, each at $20.00? Get your calculator out.
For true frequent travellers, it's already hard enough for many people to keep track and manage 7-10 ETA's. Imagine for a minute, how that affects business people that are required to travel to many countries each year. Or worse, a leisure visitor who might have family spread right across the globe? Or even a curious 'explorer' or retiree? It becomes a significant government-induced nightmare. And lets not kid ourselves here - each country has its own peculiar requirements. Nothing is uniform.
If you plan on transiting the UK and arrive on one ticket and depart on a different ticket*, you are liable to pay the horrendous UK airport tax, which is even higher if you travel in a premium cabin.
Combined with the new Visa Waiver Fee and mediocre transit facilities in UK airports, it will make transiting the UK a rather expensive and unpleasant proposition.
* Example:
CGN-LHR on Eurowings ticket
LHR-YYC on...
If you plan on transiting the UK and arrive on one ticket and depart on a different ticket*, you are liable to pay the horrendous UK airport tax, which is even higher if you travel in a premium cabin.
Combined with the new Visa Waiver Fee and mediocre transit facilities in UK airports, it will make transiting the UK a rather expensive and unpleasant proposition.
* Example:
CGN-LHR on Eurowings ticket
LHR-YYC on Air Canada ticket
The only exception for airport taxes is when inbound and continuning flights are on the same booking locator (e.g. CGN-LHR-YYC on the same BA ticket).
What happens in the case of transiting passengers? Do they still need to do this?
Yes, insanely (but Heathrow is lobbying against this)
Same as passengers transiting the US.
So going from one plane to another needs this?
This is dumb. US should drop ESTA instead and allow unrestricted travel between the US and UK.
The 10 GBP is irrelevant. It's the potential disaster that awaits some people who forget to do it. They should at least allow for "ETA on Arrival" where you pay 100 GBP and sit in a room while they process it. That can avoid worst-case scenarios.
Or you guys can get organised and get your travel documents in place in advance. You won't get to the "wait in a room with cash at LHR" scenario anyway, you'll be denied boarding at your departure airport. In fact you can't check-in - even online - without the ETA in place.
I'm not the one who's gonna get screwed by this. But I have something called empathy for other people. And obviously if they had some sort of "ETA on Arrival", you wouldn't get denied boarding.
"US should drop ESTA instead."
Never going to happen. We will only prevent (spy) more under the terrorism excuse because we can.
Sincerely,
PATRIOT ACT
If Donald Trump were still President, the UK would not have *dared* to do this--NOT!
Your people don’t travel much anyway so what are you yapping about? you are literally talking out of your ___ for no reaso
How so? We charged 21USD so where is the leg to stand?
We should stop supporting the defense of countries that nickel and dime us. You cannot live safely on the American taxpayer money and than turn around and nickel and dime that same taxpayer. Just not fair. At the very least American taxpayers should have a free and visa free entry into all European nations it protects. Period!
Agreed. And same should go for the US, which applies ESTA requirements on many allies and partners, including Europe!
If UK was paying for our defense needs, I would agree. But the America taxpayer spends a lot of money for protection of the European nations and gets nothing in return. Now they are nickle and diming us. Not acceptable.
UK spends more than 2% of its GDP on NATO.
With US being the only country to ever trigger article 5 of NATO treaty, I expect that ESTA requirement will be withdrawn for all NATO countries :)
I disagree this is a money grab. It is way cheaper and easier to add, say, £3 to the airline fee per passenger-flight out of the UK to destinations outside Europe than to charge £10 per traveler every two years given the cost to implement and maintain this system.
The renewed Trump era of Isolationism sees your pipedream on the scrapheap, @Manny!
Your lot have voted for a sh!tstorm beyond your wildest nightmare, so springclean the bunker and buckle up!
They should have looked at Singapore. You pre-register and flash through the airport in no time.
The Malaysian also have this registration thing but have not yet figured out how to integrate it to the immigration system and one still spends minutes with an officer doing all things on his keyboard, after having stood in line for ages.
I passed a few times through NZ earlier this year and it was breeze.
...They should have looked at Singapore. You pre-register and flash through the airport in no time.
The Malaysian also have this registration thing but have not yet figured out how to integrate it to the immigration system and one still spends minutes with an officer doing all things on his keyboard, after having stood in line for ages.
I passed a few times through NZ earlier this year and it was breeze.
UK immigration has usually long lines. If this ETA thing allows you to breeze through the auto-gates it would be an improvement - provided they place plenty of them. And ideally fast working auto-gates like Singapore, Indonesia. The auto gates in Amsterdam are crap and often not even working.
UK eGates can be used by passport holders from several countries already.
It will soon cost you £10 to do literally the same thing at same speed.
PRO tip; Standing in line waiting for an officer still will not get you a passport stamp.
Having to fill out paperwork ahead of time, take a photo of yourself to submit etc. is not "the same thing at the same speed." Also, Singapore requires pre-registration too, although the UK version sounds more cumbersome.
Why this obsession with getting a passport stamp?
Let’s all thank Australia for making this mainstream
Yes, who doesn't love breakdancing and money grab scheme disguised as fake visa.
At least NZ and the UK let you do it every 2 years and Schengen will be 3. Give me an option to, at a higher rate, of course, register a new passport for the life of than passport. The system can still (and probably does) check me at least annually on multi-year ETAs.
Ever since their vote to leave EU the country has gone completely crazy! Poor Isolationists.
Brexit was MUKGA.
Wait till we get another MAGA.
Quickly get a 10 year visa to China.
It's going to cost $2000 soon.
What about dual citizenship? USA and Germany? What will we do ?
Pay double?
You'll choose the passport of the country you want to protect you in the UK (and then act accordingly).
@henare: You are not protected by a passport but by a citizenship, and you are protected no matter what document you used for entry. E.g. dual national of US/Germany can still apply for consular protection of Germany even if they entered on their UK passport.
With this change will the automated egate works like today when you arrive in Heathrow.
Yes, they will. They will just check that you have the ETA as part of the other checks they do today.
Does this include transit pax?
I hope the next admin comes to some truce with UK and Europe on a visa fee waivers reciprocally. Just seems sort of silly given how much more money is generated by the tourism underlying the travel.
"The Foreign Office loves foreigners but the British people want you to be nasty to them."
-Bernard Woolley (Yes, Minister)
Yeah, I'm also wondering if transit pax have to pay this. Anyone knows?
Yes, insanely, the current proposal INCLUDES TRANSIT
Good, the US has been ripping off the rest of the world with ESTAs for years.
Is this ETA going to be required for travelers who are simply transiting the UK (e.g. connecting at LHR)?
Unfortunately yes, as of right now. A truly insane component of this plan that will kill Heathrow as a transfer hub. The airport is lobbying like crazy against it.
It wont affect LHR as a transfer hub at all.
It's certainly a non-zero burden, but I don't think an £10 process is going to "kill LHR as a transfer hub".
Welcome to 2024. One reply says this will "kill LHR as a transfer hub" and the other says it "won't affect it at all". Obviously both are wrong, and right. Border-thickening is an unfortunate trend in the brave new world, where so many xenophobic voters need coddling.
Right now, yes. But I expect it to eventually go away once British Airways and Heathrow win the battle. There is a precedent - after Brexit, the EU required a transit visa from those who were not UK citizens but lived in the UK with a residence permit. Exemption was given to those who had a Schengen, US, Canada or Japan visa. Lufthansa & other European carriers finally prevailed and from late June this year,...
Right now, yes. But I expect it to eventually go away once British Airways and Heathrow win the battle. There is a precedent - after Brexit, the EU required a transit visa from those who were not UK citizens but lived in the UK with a residence permit. Exemption was given to those who had a Schengen, US, Canada or Japan visa. Lufthansa & other European carriers finally prevailed and from late June this year, those with a UK residence permit could transit a European airport without a transit visa. There is a small list of countries whose citizens still need a transit visa even if they are UK residents.
I was reading today that France and the Netherlands no longer require a transit visa for residents in the U.K. who are not citizens or EU residents.
Poor, inconvenienced first-worlders.
Right?
I offer everyone a box of tissues.
This is nothing but a visa in disguise. NZ which is raising their fee has a similar “travel authorization” as does Australia, both of which are quite pricey. US has it and there is a nominal charge there.
All they’re doing is getting rid of a “visa” while adding this authorization with a fee tacked on. It’s nothing but a revenue raising measure.
If you think filling out a form with simple questions online and getting approval within minutes is a "visa in disguise", you clearly never applied for an actual visa.
Eh - the process for "real" visas really varies - it can be a lengthy process or a simple one. I've gone through both (China, Kenya, etc.)
@Samo
I just love comments like this. It shows how someone who travel to 2-3 places in their life have the rest of the world generalized.
Very American of you.
If you think filling out a form with simple questions online and getting approval within minutes is a not a "visa", you clearly never applied for an actual visa "on arrival".
And I'm not talking about visa exemption countries.
@Eskimo: I'm European and went through the process of obtaining proper visa multiple times in my life (incl. US visa back in the day when it was needed for me). Trust me, ESTA was a major improvement compared to that and certainly didn't feel like another visa :)
If you're going to charge me a Tenner for a fake visa, at least give me a bloody stamp on my passport.
And you can shove the rest of my expensive APD up your arse.
Stamps are going away. Passports will soon be gone as well. As will cash. All better to track you with.
UK continuing to shoot themselves in the foot, as usual. First they discouraged people from spending their money there when they stopped accepting EU ID cards (school trips from the EU basically disappeared altogether), now they're adding even more annoying red tape. While the former is much more inconvenient than the travel authorisation, one has to wonder why are they so keen on discouraging tourists from coming.
And yes, I know about ETIAS, but EU...
UK continuing to shoot themselves in the foot, as usual. First they discouraged people from spending their money there when they stopped accepting EU ID cards (school trips from the EU basically disappeared altogether), now they're adding even more annoying red tape. While the former is much more inconvenient than the travel authorisation, one has to wonder why are they so keen on discouraging tourists from coming.
And yes, I know about ETIAS, but EU can afford that and it's not like Brits have dozens of places on the continent they can go without it, like EU citizens do.
Where is Buttigieg when you need him? He should get off his butt and pressure the British to fee exempt Americans. If they refuse, Kamala should punish them.
The US can be except as soon as the UK is excempt from ESTAs.
The UK's new fee is $13, whereas the US charges British citizens a $21 ESTA fee, and has done for many years.
Maybe the US should be "punished" by your logic?
So it’s ok for yanks to apply an ESTA fee but not ok for the UK to finally reciprocate?
The US federal government is wrong but 2 wrongs don't make a right. There should be freedom of movement and no fees between civilized countries, like the EU countries, EFTA countries, UK, Canada, USA, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, NZ, Palau, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands, Micronesia.
For now, since Secretary Pete Buttigieg is the boss along with Kamala, he should get off his butt and fix things.
Because pete has unlimited time and resources so he should find a way to prioritize EVERYTHING as top priority? Nobody is going to seriously deal with this as any kind of legit issue that needs fixing.
Why would you think this is within Buttigieg's portfolio? This would be a Department of State issue.
I think I have a slightly different take - the 10 GBP fee feels a little bit petty and annoying to me given that we already have to pay ~200 GBP for the privilege of flying from the UK, which is significantly higher than any other country.
It's not the cost that is a problem, it's the bureaucracy. And it's not just the form, it's the document checks that will need to be more complex at the airports, etc.
I doubt you'll be showing actual documents at arrivals. Like with USA ESTA, the passenger uploads their data to the airline ticket a few days before you fly as part as Advanced Passenger Information. The customs system has it logged against your passport anyway.....although I wouldn't want to be first in line to test it at LHR - they system will be super-glitchy for the first 48 hours guaranteed.
You mean the privilege of their award tickets?
Lol unless you don’t pay cash fares, the taxes are baked in to the cash fare, which is very reasonable. On a business class ticket, I have always seen it comparatively priced to an Air France or AA flight
It’s not like taxes go up by 800 gbp and the flight is much more expensive than competitors prices
How will this affect last-minute bookings? Will airline booking flow require "your ETA number" to book? Suppose you're transiting through Europe enroute home to North America. You get hit with IRROPS or you just change plans (AF downgrades you from La Première) and decide (2 hours before the flight) to go thru LHR instead.
It's all very well for advance-book people to minimize this as no big deal. But it has the potential to badly...
How will this affect last-minute bookings? Will airline booking flow require "your ETA number" to book? Suppose you're transiting through Europe enroute home to North America. You get hit with IRROPS or you just change plans (AF downgrades you from La Première) and decide (2 hours before the flight) to go thru LHR instead.
It's all very well for advance-book people to minimize this as no big deal. But it has the potential to badly disrupt last-minuters like me.
I'm going to apply for an ETA every 23 months, never be without one, just like a passport.
Your take is likely how most people that travel with regularity to any of the major countries/blocs that require ETAs.
It is also worth noting that S. Korea had an ETA but has dropped it for US citizens. Not sure how many countries have done similar but it is worth noting those cases as much as in the opposite direction
Same if you were flying from Mexico to Europe and needed to reroute through US. It sounds like most people should be approved almost instantaneously. Regardless still a headache for travelers and airlines but should have a material impact on most people
I actually like ESTA in that regard. It gives me the "I can't enter the US" wild card in case an airline wants to reroute me through there. Normally I wouldn't be able to decline just because it's inconvenient but not having valid documents is perfectly legal justification for why I need another routing.
It affects last-minute bookings the very same way like the US-ESTA. If you are lucky, it gets approved within minutes and you can check-in. If not, it may take upto 72 hours in case of the US-ESTA … In my experience, it was mostly a few hours (like 4-6) until it got approved.