Originally Posted by
JimInOhio
The airlines can't really charge the customer for the return because they weren't the ones requesting the transportation.
They absolutely can. It's in every major airline's conditions of carriage.
Originally Posted by
JimInOhio
If anything, the airline would charge the government of Japan because they were the ones demanding the passenger be put on the plane.
Very funny. But no. That doesn't happen. Ever.
Originally Posted by
JimInOhio
If the OP never had a visa for entry then how did UA let the passengers board in the first place? That part doesn't make sense, at least on the surface.
Because the airport agent saw something that looked sufficiently like a visa to allow them to board.
Originally Posted by
JimInOhio
Trying to extract even more money from a customer, who's already paid many thousands, in this situation is a losing proposition for any airline. It's probably why I've never personally heard of an airline actually going ahead with such a boneheaded move.
The airlines don't pursue a lot of customers for the cost of removal because the legal and other costs of doing so will often exceed the amount claimed, especially when it isn't clear that the customer will be able to pay the judgment.
Originally Posted by
Ghoulish
More likely "we can just use her return ticket" vs the usual "we need to eat the return fare like we do 99% of the time with immigration refusal".
Back in paper ticket days, they'd probably just have lifted the coupon for the return journey and let the back office sort it out.