weero

Good point ... I fear that they actually do these things.

This is why studies ordered by government agency A always show that the policies of agency A did work, irrespective of how they impact peoples' lives and how they are perceived.

dwugson

Given that Emirates codeshares with Qantas am suprised that this discussion is even taking place!

flyerCO

However if you overstay, and get caught then the airline can still be fined for not ensuring you had a trip onward. Doesn't matter if Immigration let's you through the airline was supposed to verify.

flyerCO

However they're tight when only one parent is present. Two male parents having legal custody is still rare in Western cultures, much less Eastern. Thus it's understandable that there may be confusion that the mother hasn't given permission to travel.

s0ssos

Do you have any evidence of that? Are you saying if someone overstays and the airline verified their onward ticket they are off the hook? If someone overstays and the airline didn't verify their onward ticket they are liable?

It doesn't even make sense. What if they were going to leave by land or ship?

flyerCO

As long as they got some type of information from the passenger of when they plan on leaving they're off the hook. It doesn't matter how they leave, just that they've shown they have plans to leave.

It's a legal requirement to have proof of onward travel (regardless of method of transit) for most countries.

Once the airline has gotten information from the passenger they've done their due diligence and are off the hook for penalties. Why do you think they ask for the information? It's not just to be nosy.

s0ssos

Oh, people do plenty of things they think are necessary because they are scared. Whether or not there is a reason is another thing.
Can you point me to info on which airlines have been fined and by which countries? I can't find anything in a quick google search.

eternaltransit

That kind of information is generally kept confidential by airlines - more transparent governments may release data but it's unlikely.

However it is a fact that airlines that carry passengers to a country who are subsequently denied entry because of improper documentation are levied charges by that country and sometimes charged removal costs.

Airlines must check pax requirements against Timatic before allowing travel.

FR recently won a case against unjust fines in the UK where the UK authorities fined FR for failing to spot professional forgeries of Greek passports that even their own immigration officers failed to detect were fake at the border, but were subsequently discovered by specialist teams.

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articl...gal-immigrants

ft101

The way I understand it is that if detected at immigration, then yes the airline pays for the return and may be fined. If caught later (they may have been in the country for weeks or months) then the airline is off the hook.

flyerCO above seemed to indicate that when someone was caught later (in his/her example for overstay) then the airline was still liable. That would be a new one on me.

flyerCO

Look up the requirements in TIMATIC. Just about every country has as a requirement listed "Proof of onward travel." If that's listed then the airline must obtain how you/when you plan on leaving, just like they must verify you meet all other requirements for entry.

Normally most have a RT ticket which serves this purpose.

flyerCO

That was a case about the fact that the airline obtained information (passports) that appeared valid. Of course they were vindicated. However if they hadn't asked passengers for their passports, then even if they got let in the airline would be on the hook.

Basically in the case above all required information was obtained. However if airline doesn't obtain proof of onward travel then they've not ensured the person is complying with requirements for admission. Thus the airline can be sued for flying someone without ensuring they met all requirements.

skywardhunter

Getting a little off topic here guys...?

s0ssos

This seems to be ridiculous. Since when are airlines "enforcement"? I'm glad the judge ruled against the UK Government.
How are airline employees supposed to "check" validity of documentation? They aren't trained for that. And I don't think that is their job. It is the job of immigration, which apparently cannot spot forgeries in the UK either.
Classic example of government trying to make others do its work (and not paying them for it).

Saltire74

A lot of airlines flying into the UK are given training by UK Border Force staff based abroad at their local stations to help identify high risk pax and forged travels documentation to a: Try and prevent embarkation of illegally documented pax and b: Attempt to limit the liability of the airline if those checks have been done thoroughly after training by UKBF staff.

Unfortunately it doesn't always work but there are mechanisms in place to try and limit 'illegal' immigration.

In years gone past when I used to go to Lagos quite a bit, VS used to photocopy passports before boarding at the gate in case some pax intent on claiming asylum on arrival disposed of their travels documents on board the aircraft.

Apologies for keeping this OT.

Safe & Happy Travels

S

ukdoctor

My passport gets scanned everytime I transit DXB to come back to the UK. :-(