Originally Posted by
stifle
They absolutely can. It's in every major airline's conditions of carriage.
Very funny. But no. That doesn't happen. Ever.
Because the airport agent saw something that looked sufficiently like a visa to allow them to board.
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.
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.
So interestingly, I was reviewing my copy of the IATA ticketing handbook (a PDF of the 39th ed from 2007 is readily available online with a simple google search) which has guidance for this exact situation. I actually thought of this thread, but wasn't going to bring it back up, but now that someone else has I'll add what the ticketing handbook states in
2.23.13 Inadmissible Passengers
-Delivering carrier is responsible for ticketing the inadmissible passenger to new location advised by authorities
-If passenger has a return ticket that should be used. If the return ticket isn't valid for the destination they're being sent to, any remaining coupon value on the ticket should be applied towards the new flights
-Endorsement/fare restriction requirements are waived
-If the passengers remaining ticket doesn't cover the new flight they're being put on, the delivering carrier should collect the fare difference
-If the passenger can't pay the fare difference, the delivering carrier still needs to ticket them for the outbound flight, however the cost is split among all carriers who participated in transporting the passenger to the point of inadmissibility.
The last point is important, because in that case where the passenger can't cover the fare difference, the airlines obligation is only to return them to the point dictated by authorities, not necessarily their origin. So if for example the itinerary was ORD-SEA on BB and SEA-TYO on CC. Passenger is refused in TYO and airline ordered to send them back to the states. If the passenger can't pay the fare difference, the only obligation of CC is to get them back to the states, not necessarily to ORD (and BB & CC would share the cost for the TYO-USA flight the passenger needs to be put on).
Also as others have discussed there is a distinction between inadmissible person and deportee. An inadmissible person is refused entry/ordered removed before ever being allowed in, therefore they're not a deportee. On the other hand, a deportee is someone who was legally admitted to a country and then later ordered to be removed. When it is an inadmissible person, it is that person/the airlines responsibility to cover the fare of the transportation. When it is a deportee, it is the country (subject to local laws/regulations) ordering the removal who needs to provide the ticket fare.