fracmeister

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/u.../1/445013.html

I am sure somebody knows who they were. Maybe just a couple of GS...

mahasamatman

I doubt any GS would have been turned back by immigration. I suspect someone at United is going to get in trouble for not checking passports and visas.

gobluetwo

Doubtful...

Also, talk about much ado about nothing. Officials questioning why United turned around for these guys instead of letting them take another flight? Given that there is one non-stop from DEL to EWR, and they're not going to let these guys connect in FRA or MUC, or make them sleep overnight in the immigration hall, seems prudent to have turned around to get them with a minimal delay.

PanAmOneTwo

Longtime lurker, first time poster. I was on this flight in BF. This article, like many Indian news reports, is pure BS. We pushed back on time, and stopped about 100 feet off the gate, with the tug still attached. The captain informed us that two passengers (it was, for the record, not two men) that had come in off UA82 were denied entry into India by immigration authorities and had to return on UA83. So we pulled back into the gate, waited for the two passengers (it appeared as if they had to be escorted by authorities), and departed about 45 minutes late. We still arrived EWR about 10 minutes early. Why they were denied entry into India, given extensive doc checks in EWR etc, is unknown.

But those are the facts as I observed them on the flight. I'm sure I have an incomplete picture, but the news story seems completely inaccurate fwiw.

physioprof

Neat that they refer to the jetway as a "jetty". I had never heard that before, but I like it. While the news story at India Today is written in a pretty breathless dramatic fashion, it seems like the facts are pretty much consistent with the first-hand report in the post above.

notquiteaff

That "article" was soo painful to read.

malgudi

Overly dramatic and sloppy reporting ... they even got the flight # wrong (UA 80!) in the graphic

emcampbe

Maybe, maybe not. Every country I have visited that requires a visa always has a term along the lines of a valid visa does not guarantee entry into the country. So passports/visas are required for entry, and those could have been in order, yet when the passengers showed up at immigration, they were denied for one reason or another.

Kacee

Indeed. For example, a pax can have all their papers in order to enter Canada, but if the check immigration runs at the border shows that the pax has a drunk driving conviction, Canada may deny entry as undesirable.

No way for the airline to know that's going to happen and no violation of the rules requiring the airline to confirm eligibility to enter the country.

bmwe92fan

I wish we could say that this was due to a slow news day, but it's really how the Indian press do things lol...

ou81two

You forgot to draw in the aliens hovering above the flight due to curiosity about why it didn't take off and the supersonic Russian submarine that followed it to the United States.

Bonehead

Probably the two guys who just busted out of Shawshank.

runnerwallah

I remember colleague was once denied entry into India when the Indian consulate mistakenly wrote the end date of his visa as the previous year (and before his start date). Such a subtle mistake, nobody caught it. Not his fault, but once he landed, he had to hop back on the next flight out of the country.

MSPeconomist

I wonder what would have happened if the UA flight had been full of revenue passengers. Would UA have been forced to IDB two paid passengers?

iluv2fly

The disdain for GS members in this forum is truly disappointing and pathetic.