Originally Posted by
Lux Flyer
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).
IATA rules are all well and good but are an agreement between carriers. The agreement between the carrier and the passenger is the carrier's conditions of carriage. And the conditions of carriage allow the carrier to sue the passenger for the excess fare in this instance.
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.
I agree. The case under discussion in this thread was the former, however. Additionally, the carrier's liability may differ depending on whether the passenger was refused for invalid or insufficient documentation (higher liability) or something they said/did at passport control or their history (lower liability as carrier could not have known the passenger would be refused).