Originally Posted by
Adam Smith
Airlines are obliged to comply with the laws in the jurisdictions in which they operate. Those laws require passengers to have the necessary documentation to enter the country(ies) to which they're travelling and typically require airlines to return passengers to their origin, if inadmissible, at the airline's cost.
Timatic is a tool built by IATA to help airlines identify required documentation. It is not official. Canadian laws do not tell border agents to admit someone if Timatic says they're permitted to enter, it spells out the specific documentation that's required for entry.
Of course admission at the border is subject to local law, but as you said yourself Timatic is there for check-in/gate staff not to have to make assumptions of their own, but to have a manual to conveniently rely on (both for better and worse)
Originally Posted by
Adam Smith
If AC transports a passenger who doesn't have the necessary documentation, it can't say to CBSA "not our fault, Timatic said this guy was admissible!"
Surely the carrier wouldn't be fined in that case (Timatic being outdated), now would they?
Originally Posted by
Adam Smith
No, those are people offering practical advice. Some of us are busy people travelling on tight schedules who would rather not have to spend time arguing with/educating MOLAs at the airport. I have had had to go through this with a check-in agent (WestJet at JFK) about the very subject of this thread, but only bothered to spend the 10 minutes or so to discuss it with her, get her supervisor involved, and get them to get clearance by phone from someone back in YYC or YYZ, but that was because I had forgotten my passport at the hotel and using my NEXUS card was the only way I was going to get back home that night.
It's a shame agents are so ignorant, and people in situations such as yours back then would endure much better customer service and less stress if check-in agents actually knew the entry requirements and actually checked Timatic whenever in doubt. Unusual situations are bound to occur with the huge amount of passengers travelling, and they too should be properly accommodated just like the rest.
The only way for that to happen is for agents to learn, and the way I see it, for that to happen they have to face situations where they realise "oh, turns out I was wrong here". Because if they keep thinking they're invariably in the right, then how should they come to the realisation that they sometimes aren't, given that the higher-ups clearly don't care much about educating their staff in verifying travel documentation.
Originally Posted by
Adam Smith
I don't know what the laws in Sweden or Georgia are, and that's really not very relevant to this thread in the Air Canada forum. What's relevant is CBSA's rules; the post I quoted above was from a CBSA officer. But if an airline flying you to Canada demanded a passport when you thought the law entitled you to travel for less, you wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on, no matter how much huffing and puffing you did.
I just mentioned it as a parallel example of how it'd be beneficial to everyone, officers and pax alike, if the officers learned the full extent of the entry conditions rather than holding up someone with perfectly valid documentation just because they're not used to it.