YOWgary

Fun fact.

Say you're flying from Amsterdam (where marijuana is legal) to Seattle (where marijuana is legal), and upon your arrival, the US Customs agent asks if you've ever used marijuana, and you say "yes, sir, once, ten years ago, in Amsterdam, where it was entirely legal, I didn't like it and now I campaign for it to be banned".

US Customs can put you on the next flight back to Amsterdam, deeming you permanently inadmissible to the United States on grounds of "moral turpitude" because you're a drug user.

That is to say, on the grounds that something you did that was legal where you were, and is legal in the place in the United States that you're going to, is technically illegal in the inch-thick membrane of federal jurisdiction through which you passed when entering the United States.

tcook052

A reminder we are not discussing entry regulations into the U.S. bur rather Air Canada's costs to return passenger for being refused entry into Canada.

tcook052
AC forum moderator

karachi

I'm with AC on this - its asking for accountability for things beyond your control. just like a snow storm

BTW the level of passport checking varies a lot. from the anal 4-5 times you get checked in IST, to cursory ones in other places. The best is when in places like FRA and LHR, they start asking you dumb questions (discl : i am naturally well tanned, and there may be a causal effect). i've been asked stuff like -

- hows the weather in Canada
- where in toronto do you live. (i answered Westmount and passed)

and my all time favourite :

- how are the blue leafs doing

superangrypenguin

I don't get why this is news?

What airline enjoys paying for these costs? It's just the cost of doing business. Big story about nothing.

yulred

It may make sense to treat this as a deportation or enforced removal.

Who pays for that? I doubt it's airlines.

YEG USER

If AC randomly complained about this to the media, I'd agree that it isn't news, however it appears (from the article) that there is a federal review panel and AC made a submission in the hopes of getting something changed.

WR Cage

Someone at CTV News did a FOIP request for AC submission on the Transport Canada review. This is what they got back that was not redacted.

As stated above, it was the Transport Canada review that triggered AC responses to this and another recent media adventure.

The bigger question, how did CTV News get the right combination for a FOIP request that was very specific. There is a deep throat somewhere in AC. Perhaps someone got a bad performance review and is getting some payback.

Often1

This is incorrect. Canada is the exception in forcing air carriers to pay for the removal of people who are denied entry despite possessing valid documents.

If AC transports a passenger from Canada to the UK and that individual is denied entry for reasons other than lack of proper docs., HMG picks up the tab for returning the pax to Canada. Not so the other way around.

AC has a point. It is far from a cost of doing business. It is the responsibility of each government to return people it chooses not to accept.

Transpacificflyer

Canada's airlines have not fulfilled their responsibilities under the screening process. As you know, there are 2 types of travelers; Those who require Visas and those who do not. As of March 15 of this year(correction added after error noted - see below- should read 2016) all visa exempt travelers must submit an electronic screening document; "Visa-exempt foreign nationals who fly to or transit through Canada will need an Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA). Exceptions include U.S. citizens and travellers with a valid visa." The valid visa holders are exempt because they will have already been screened.

Here's where the system didn't work and why one shouldn't feel sorry for the airlines; The airlines didn't properly check passengers and did not follow proper screening procedures. In many cases, the rejected passengers would have been discovered prior to departure if the airlines had done their jobs. CTV ran an embarrassing expose last July on the issue; On Wednesday, a CTV investigation revealed that many large airlines have flouted rules about providing passenger information before flights land -- usually without penalties. Government data reviewed by CTV News shows that more than 3,000 flights since 2013 have failed to provide complete passenger information to the CBSA. Regulations allow for $3,000 fines for each violation, but only three such fines have been handed out since 2013. Canada’s public safety minister responded Thursday by saying he expects all airlines to comply with the regulations.

That's rather awful. I doubt if much has improved since then.
No need to raise the issue of criminal record checks, because the CBSA does not have full access to the rest of the world's criminal record data bases. It can access some U.S. info, but no real time EU or Japanese data. Much of the screening process lies with the visas and this is where the reject issue lies. The majority of people being turned back at airports are visa violators or people who have been prohibited for entering Canada. If the airlines don't forward the passenger manifests in a timely manner and do not verify passports and visas of passengers, it is not the government's fault. I draw your attention to the fraud discovered in Caracas. It was 100% related to the airline and its contractor. This is one of the major concerns that was raised with service to Beirut. Without thorough screening prior to departure from Beirut, it wasfelt that the Canadian destination would have been flooded with bogus visitors and refugee claimants.

The point here is that the airlines want someone else to pay for their incompetence and failure to follow the regulations. Let them adhere to the rules first, and then they can come back and whine.

robsaw

Umm it isn't 2016 yet. The eTA goes into effect March 15, 2016.

Transpacificflyer

When did the UK change it's law?
Immigration Act 1971 c. 77 SCHEDULE 2 Part I says differently. I will copy from a Freedom of Information request answer that was made in the UK.

United Kingdom
2-3. Costs of repatriation
Under Paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, where a person is refused entry to the United Kingdom and removal directions are given, the owners or agents of the ship or aircraft in which they arrived are liable to arrange for their removal (including the costs of that removal) from the United Kingdom. Additionally, under Paragraph 19 of the same schedule, the carrier is also liable for costs in respect of the custody, accommodation and maintenance of that person, for any period not exceeding 14 days, while they are detained or liable to detention, unless a current entry clearance or work permit is held As such the cost of refusing and removing such persons from the UK is normally met by the carrier with no significant element of cost arising for UKBA.


It looks like you are confusing the contract of carriage conditions with the generally accepted rules allowed under the Warsaw Convention. One allows governments to charge the costs to the carriers, and the other allows the airlines to charge back these costs to the passengers. Two very different obligations.

Bottom line: Canada is no different than the rest of the world in its requirement for the carrier to remove the passenger at the carrier's costs.

pitz

Simple way to make this go away -- AC just needs to make sure all of their passengers either put up a security deposit for their deportation, or are travelling on the first leg of a ticket that includes an exit from Canada.

Is AC really complaining about not being able to collect a full-Y or full-J fare for a walk-up deportation/return/denial instead of the discount Tango that most non-business travellers fly on? Because that scenario likely represents most visitors to Canada by air. Surely if you fly all the way to Canada from overseas on a roundtrip AC ticket, and AC has to fly you back on account of inadmissability, that the unused/unusable return segment is used as a set off against the carrier's cost of removal?

Transpacificflyer

Absolutely correct. My error. Apologies. However, as I noted, the majority of removals are related to failures to provide passenger manifests and to check passports and visas. The Parliamentary committee hearings for the electronic visa were an eye opener. Some of the examples cited, were ridiculous. Cheap photocopied passports and, poorly made counterfeit visas.

phbl

you do what they do in europe and outsource passport checking to a company whose job is to check and ensure that passport isn't fake.

so that way if someone with a fake passport gets through, the airline can have the outsourced security company pay the fine instead of the airline.

bureaucracy creates beautiful bureaucratic ba----rds

FlyingFelix

There are many reasons that people get denied and one of them is someone boarding with a valid passport, while inflight, dump it in the trash and hitting Canadian soil claiming refugee status. It's more common than you would think!