Covid-19 testing , return flight to USA vs Land crossing

Government policy make sense?

I suppose you think there should be ice machines in Satan's domicile as well. :-)

To address your question, No, I have no info.

Government policy is what it is. Often it takes on a life of its own and reasons (reasoning) get lost in the paperwork.

Perhaps focus your outrage into writing your legislators requesting pre-flight testing be eliminated? I know I wrote President Biden, but surprisingly have heard nothing back😀.

PS. The CDC arbitrarily put strict requirements on cruise ships as well.

Hahahahaha 😂 You expect a reply ???? ROTFL

While I would not presume to understand the reasoning behind the current decision.... I'd hazard a guess that

A this only concerns travel between the US and 2 other countries, at least one of which has a much higher percentage of its residents who are fully vaccinated. While air travel must be concerned with travel from every other country in the world, where covid may or may not be surging.

B both land borders deal with a huge amount of commercial traffic daily, with truckers crossing back and forth on a very frequent basis. Expecting them to test on a daily or near daily basis? Really? And then there are those who live in border towns or cities who pop across the border frequently for a few hours of shopping, etc.

Considering the difficulty the US has had with getting its population vaccinated and controlling surges, there is a degree of logic in the idea of minimizing the number of cases being brought in by travellers, so I can understand to an extent why the CDC is reluctant to drop the air travel test requirement.

But this is just my WAG. Feel free to agree or disagree.

This is just a guess. When people are denied boarding on a plane, they bear the full cost. When people are stopped and held up at a land crossing, the whole trucking/ freight system (between, say, CA and Mexico where there is a lot of goods movement) bears a collective cost because several crossings are already really crowded. It may also be a manpower/ resources issue, as US Customs and Border Patrol may already be overextended by dealing with illegal crossings unrelated to covid. TSA and FAA have regulatory authority over airports, and it seems administratively and logistically easier to enforce at airports; the rules are better publicized that you will not be able to board under certain conditions (so it prevents people from showing up in the first place) and there's an infrastucture in place to upload your docs before coming to the airport. Plus, I would guess more leisure travelers arrive by plane than by land. Arriving by land is much more narrow - only two choices: Canada and Mexico. By plane, there is a much wider range of orgins and destinations (some places in the world have very low vaccination rates). I don't think any of the rules are as arbitrary as they seem; we just can't see the assumptions or data underlying the decisions. Policies are all about trade-offs, not perfection. If they target or help the greatest number of people, they can still be effective or cost-efficient in addressing their goals.

The airports are much bigger points of entries? One infected others on a plane who in turn took connecting flights domestic and international and so on? It's that simple?

One can fly from Europe to Tijuana via Mexico City, and walk into the US via the Cross Border Express bridge. Or, fly to some city in Canada and bus across the border. No testing required for either scenario.

I, too, would love to see whatever data the CDC has that's keeping this in place, but have zero expectation that it will be presented. (Whether said data actually exists, and if so why other countries don't find it so compelling as to continue requiring testing to enter, that's a whole different question...)

"One can fly from Europe to Tijuana via Mexico City, and walk into the US via the Cross Border Express bridge. Or, fly to some city in Canada and bus across the border. "

Yes, the added cost and time required to do either of those things certainly outweighs the cost and time needed for a readily available antigen test. Have you seen any evidence to support this?

Have you seen any evidence to support this?

My point wasn't that it's cost or time effective, but that the current logic of testing air arrivals and not others is...questionable.

But, since you asked, here's at least one person whose done the Tijuana crossing...

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/coronavirus-travel/2060730-us-require-air-travelers-provide-negative-test-within-1-day-departure-55.html#post34148881 (See post #812)

And, though not travelling from Europe, some Canadian hockey teams have done a bus across the border and then a flight...

https://reason.com/2022/05/05/planes-buses-and-covid-tests-how-the-nhl-playoffs-are-spotlighting-americas-dumb-border-testing-rules/

I too sent a message thru the White House website and did get an autogenerated reply - which is a much as I expected.

May need to go after my state senators and reps as well.

I found the letter that the US Travel Association sent to the administration on 5 May makes a pretty compelling case. It's signed by 260 organizations and corporations in the travel and airline industry.

As stated earlier, the reason land crossings don't require testing is economical. Thousands of trucks cross into the U.S. from Canada and Mexico. Adding the requirement that they have to have tests and prove it will cause severe backlogs in processing the goods. That could mean delays and added costs to the consumer. There are also long lines at the borders for tourists. Trying to add the proof of a test to each will take forever.

The same is true for ship's crews. How are you going to test the at sea? And how long will it take to process each crew member?

However, proving you have taken a test for a flight adds no time to processing arriving passengers. It's all done by the airlines before boarding.

Finland requires proof of vaccination for arrivals. The airline doesn't do it. To leave the baggage claim area at the airport you have to show the proof to a Finnish official. That causes a line but it moves fast.

Yup. My sister lives near Buffalo and regularly flies out of Toronto, it is much cheaper and has
much better flights than anything else nearby and is only a 2 hour drive. She’s pretty happy not to have to worry about testing - just fly back to Toronto, retrieve her car from airport parking and drive home. Of course, 6 months ago this wasn’t possible - Canada had very strict entry requirements. But now, no. No test required to enter Canada, at least for the vaccinated, and no test at the US land border.

Thanks everyone for your replies. Several days ago I had contacted the office of my local Congresswoman with my question about testing. Today one of the Congresswoman's aides contacted me and told me the CDC had informed her that this decision if a joint CDC, Dept. of Homeland Services, and Dept. of Health and Human Services decision.
So I'm left feeling overwhelmed by bureaucracy!!
Mira thanks for the idea. I am a Buffalo area native and I have brothers who still live in the area. Perhaps the flight into Toronto idea is the way to go.