Talk:Avoiding travel through Canada

I started Avoiding travel through Canada
And will probably be bombarded by notifications that someone somewhere made a link to it for the next months, but I'd be much delighted if the article were to grow and flourish. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it common for airlines or agents to route traffic from (some random out-of-region non-Canadian point) to (some other equally random non-Canadian point) through Soviet Canuckistan? I'd think the fares would be higher in Canada than the US, so they'd be more likely to err on the side of "we've got this cheap flight through Chicago if you don't mind a concussion, a couple of broken teeth... and that pesky detail that United Breaks Guitars." K7L (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just anecdotal evidence, but when looking for flights MGA-FRA or MGA-BER or similar, there are often a handful via the US and (slightly more expensive) a handful of flights via the country with all the Ys and Zs in its IATA codes. Of course there are also quite often quite some good deals for MGA-PTY-MAD-FRA or SJO-SDQ-FRA or the likes (with really baffling airline acrobatic as to the price logic on occasion; AMS-PTY-MGA being more expensive than FRA-AMS-PTY-MGA being just one of them). Thankfully the still pretty awful but apparently slightly less awful than United Delta is the one that flies to both Europe and Nicaragua among the US carriers Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this is a tough one. My first instinct would be to simply expand the scope of Avoiding travel through the United States and rename it Avoiding travel through the U.S. and Canada, but on closer inspection that's a less ideal solution than I had originally thought: while most of the reasons one would want to avoid travel through Canada apply equally to the U.S. (no sterile transit; uncommonly stringent entry restrictions for those with criminal records, even including minor offenses committed many years ago), the reverse is not necessarily true: there are a good many concerns that are specific to the U.S., with the potential for even more down the line e.g. if Trump tries again to resurrect the Muslim ban. I'm still concerned, though, that if we keep the articles separate there will be a ton of redundant information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just an aside point, if you only read the edit summary of this title, it sounds as if I somehow commenced a travel boycott of Canada (which I haven't and don't intend to, for the record).
 * Anyhoo... I think there are a couple of countries that get relatively easier access to Canada than the US, and the current political leaders are rather different and so may be the inclination of certain groups of people to visit said country. Also, are the US as strict when it comes to past drunk driving convictions? (For the record, I consider drunk driving a serious offense and much more worthy of persecution than a bunch of other offenses, but that's neither here nor there). Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * God, why do you hate Canada so much, Hobbit? :P
 * Although I am ignorant of the specific laws, my first intuition is that since the U.S. and Canada are two separate legal jurisdictions and not in a customs union, it's best to keep the articles separate. On the other hand, I expect most of the non-legal stuff (i.e. the actual flight routes) would just be copied directly from one article to another, so there would be quite a lot of content overlap. All the same, for clarity's sake, it is probably best to not jumble up two countries' laws in one article. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am innocent. Evil new media made me do it! Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In practical terms, flying between the USA and East Asia via YVR, or between the USA and Europe (or Western Asia) via YYZ is fairly common. For example, you are fairly often offered either option when redeeming United MileagePlus or KLM/Air France FlyingBlue frequent flyer miles. (I've flown through YYZ US-to-international a couple times, and found the document check in YYZ fairly quick and easy; but then I am a Canadian citizen). However, for most passengers traveling between the USA and the Old World a "Canada-less" alternative (a direct flight from the USA to Europe or Asia) is easy to find. One may also connect in Canada when flying between the Old World and Mexico/Central America/Caribbean; historically, it was fairly common for transit passengers on these routes to request asylum in Canada (e.g. during a refueling stop in YQX), so I wasn't surprised when at some point in the 1990s Canada imposed visa requirements not just on passengers transferring in Canadian airports, but on those whose planes merely land in Canada for refueling.
 * Pretty much all of the travelers who may want to avoid a transfer/stop in Canada will fall in the following 3 categories:


 * (1) Those who travel to/from the USA, have a US visa (or don't need one), and are not eligible for a Canadian ETA or TWOV (i.e. have to get a Canadian visa). They can be easily accommodated by booking a direct flight from the USA to Europe or Asia.
 * (2) Those who travel from the USA to the Old World, who need a US visa but don't have one (because their original US entry visa has expired or been spent), and need a visa for Canada. Same solution as for (1).
 * (3) Those who travel between the Old World (or Australia) and Latin American/Caribbean, and need a transit visa for both USA and Canada. These are the group who are the hardest to accommodate, since direct flights between the Latin America/Caribbean and Eurasia/Africa/Australasia are comparatively few (as compared to the itineraries via US or Canada). So it is accommodating this group which should be the main topic of the article. -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)