Originally Posted by
AlwaysAisle
You are comparing consumer law and immigration law.
I think you are going off the rail a little. Here we are talking about documentation requirements of international passengers, we are not talking about racism. But the article you quoted also states that:
So airlines know immigration law? Apparently they don't (nor did you read the article I linked to, because otherwise you would understand why the "racism").
EasyJet says Nazari was barred in error. “There are varying types of residence permits and combinations of documents required in order for us to be able to allow travel and this is sometimes complex,” it says. “On further investigation it is clear he should have been able to travel and we will arrange a refund of his flight and compensation.”
So your conclusion is that untrained people working for airlines are supposed to know the nuances of immigration law, because they are the gatekeepers (which in my world means you have obligations, similar to have the governments in the world have obligations to their citizens, though I understand that isn't true for all countries), and they are able to make determinations when people do not have "appropriate documentation" (I don't know what that means, but apparently because the people working at the airport are basically immigration lawyers and judges they know) so that they can rightfully deny them boarding.
What I see is stupid people who work at airlines or their contractors (untrained, if you want to use a nicer word. They have no knowledge of immigration law, to be more specific) who may or may not know how to read English at a high level (certainly not as the level of a native-speaker of English who has graduated from university. And often are unable to read anything in the language of the country the passenger is flying to). So unless they are able to say with 100% certainty, they deny the passenger boarding. With no downside to themselves. Only upside (as you mentioned airlines can get fined). Does that seem right?