Denied boarding for not having eTA. Any recourse?
Jul 7, 2019, 6:23 am
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
While the wording varies, each airline's CoC has language shielding them from improper documentation.
Regardless - this is an argument you can never win.
(FWIW - it will be another story if the passenger holds Canadian/U.S. Passport, or Maple Leaf Card.)
Jul 7, 2019, 6:24 am
#17
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Programs: AA exp 3mm Hertz 5*
Posts: 334
(Essentially the governments make/force airlines to be enforcing immigration rules by imposing penalties on them. That is how I see it)
And that explains why you see all of this as a thing that is the responsibility of someone other than the pax. Do you drive through a stop sign because it wasn’t there three years ago?
And that explains why you see all of this as a thing that is the responsibility of someone other than the pax. Do you drive through a stop sign because it wasn’t there three years ago?
Jul 7, 2019, 7:12 am
#18
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 595
AC gets fined if they transport her BUD-YYZ. It's that simple.
Not clear why you think LOT is responsible? As other FTs have said, its her responsibility.
ps The title of your thread is a tad misleading. Denied Boarding is a term used on these boards when issues arise with oversold flights, etc. She was denied boarding..........she had not met the legal requirements! Its that simple.
pps The term is ESTA, not ETA. I am pretty sure.
Not clear why you think LOT is responsible? As other FTs have said, its her responsibility.
ps The title of your thread is a tad misleading. Denied Boarding is a term used on these boards when issues arise with oversold flights, etc. She was denied boarding..........she had not met the legal requirements! Its that simple.
pps The term is ESTA, not ETA. I am pretty sure.
Jul 7, 2019, 7:23 am
#19
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: トロント
Programs: IHG Gold
Posts: 4,818
As for Cheapoair, what do you expect? "Cheapo" is in their name. A full-service TA probably would have warned your friend of the eTA requirement. The AC website definitely does. But she chose to book with Cheapoair and got what she paid for. I wouldn't expect a penny out of them.
Cheapo's web site does state this in their terms and conditions:
VISA AND ENTRY REQUIREMENTSAll customers are advised to verify travel documents (transit visa/entry visa) for the country through which they are transiting and/or entering. Reliable information regarding visa and passport requirements can be found by clicking this link CIBT website here. Additional information can also be found through the consulate/embassy or the country(s) you are visiting or transiting through or contact us at 1-888-766-3163. CheapOair will not be responsible if proper travel documents are not available and you are denied entry or transit into a Country.
CheapOair's sale of tickets to you does not imply any guarantee of passenger's ability to enter the country of destination. Traveler understands that CheapOair accepts no responsibility for determining passenger's eligibility to enter or transit thru any specific country. Information if any given by CheapOair employee must be verified with Government proper authorities and such information does not constitute any CheapOair's responsibility.
CheapOair's sale of tickets to you does not imply any guarantee of passenger's ability to enter the country of destination. Traveler understands that CheapOair accepts no responsibility for determining passenger's eligibility to enter or transit thru any specific country. Information if any given by CheapOair employee must be verified with Government proper authorities and such information does not constitute any CheapOair's responsibility.
Jul 7, 2019, 7:30 am
#20
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ideally YOW, but probably not
Programs: AC SE*MM
Posts: 1,822
Um, you wrote that LOT flew the first segment, WAW-BUD and it was on one ticket. Unless something is different in Europe than in NA, if the lack of documentation is discovered in BUD then LOT needs to transport this person back BUD-WAW but that is it. AC is under no obligation to sort out the ETA, nor is LOT. They’re just obliged to make sure you have the correct documentation before you get on the plane, or fly you back if you don’t.
Jul 7, 2019, 7:40 am
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Programs: UA*1K MM
Posts: 23,293
Also, I m not entirely sure LOT made a mistake.
They were paid by AC to fly the pax to BUD, and they did their part.
As others said, this matter is unfortunately closed.
Jul 7, 2019, 7:54 am
#22
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Houston
Programs: UA 1K and Million Miler, *A Gold, Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium, Hertz Five Star,
Posts: 1,301
Jul 7, 2019, 8:16 am
#23
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: sqrt(-united states of apologist)
Programs: *$ Green
Posts: 5,403
Only recourse pax has is that LOT Sent her over without the proper papers.
So basically, if you incurred expenses because you got stuck somewhere you weren't supposed to, then I would claim that against LOT.
That being said, I don't think you will get much. From my understanding, Airlines enforce customs / paperwork rules because country regulators fine them when they dump passengers in countries they're not allowed to go to. Not to protect the passenger from ending up in a country and being stuck.
So I can see LOT telling the pax sure we'll fly you back on goodwill, but your paperwork is your own problem. If lucky, they'll say OK We shouldn't have let you boarded, so here's some comp, but we're not refunding your ticket nor reissuing it.
So basically, if you incurred expenses because you got stuck somewhere you weren't supposed to, then I would claim that against LOT.
That being said, I don't think you will get much. From my understanding, Airlines enforce customs / paperwork rules because country regulators fine them when they dump passengers in countries they're not allowed to go to. Not to protect the passenger from ending up in a country and being stuck.
So I can see LOT telling the pax sure we'll fly you back on goodwill, but your paperwork is your own problem. If lucky, they'll say OK We shouldn't have let you boarded, so here's some comp, but we're not refunding your ticket nor reissuing it.
Jul 7, 2019, 10:14 am
#24
Join Date: Dec 2017
Programs: Aeroplan
Posts: 22
I had a long discussion with gate agents in a similar scenario, but with the correct right to travel. I think the issue has to do with the airline responsible for "landing" the passenger in a destination with valid documentation.
I was traveling YVR-TPE-HGH-open jaw-PVG-YVR. The YVR-TPE is on AC, while TPE-HGH is on BR. In accordance with China's new (at that time) 144-day visa free transit rules for Canadian passport holders, this itinerary does not require Chinese visa at the time of travel. The rule being new back then, AC agent at both check in and at the gate seem very confused even after I articulated to them in great detail and showing them the website, and they had to make multiple calls without being able to get a firm answer. Eventually, the gate agent decided to let me board and say something along the lines of "alright, go ahead... at the end of the day Eva is going to land you in China, and we will not be liable... otherwise we may face USD$10k per passenger which is USD$30k for 3 of you." Same thing was encountered in TPE when flying to HGH, and the BR agent finally confirmed after multiple phone calls, and allows me to board. They are very friendly but apologetic, saying that they had to make very sure, otherwise Chinese government will fine them USD$30k, and they had to fly us right back.
So in OP's friend's situation, I think it's a matter of accountability vs. convenience. At WAW LO didn't feel like causing a scene/trouble and thus just allowed boarding, and AC had to deny because AC is on the hook for the fine and transportation cost TALT.
I was traveling YVR-TPE-HGH-open jaw-PVG-YVR. The YVR-TPE is on AC, while TPE-HGH is on BR. In accordance with China's new (at that time) 144-day visa free transit rules for Canadian passport holders, this itinerary does not require Chinese visa at the time of travel. The rule being new back then, AC agent at both check in and at the gate seem very confused even after I articulated to them in great detail and showing them the website, and they had to make multiple calls without being able to get a firm answer. Eventually, the gate agent decided to let me board and say something along the lines of "alright, go ahead... at the end of the day Eva is going to land you in China, and we will not be liable... otherwise we may face USD$10k per passenger which is USD$30k for 3 of you." Same thing was encountered in TPE when flying to HGH, and the BR agent finally confirmed after multiple phone calls, and allows me to board. They are very friendly but apologetic, saying that they had to make very sure, otherwise Chinese government will fine them USD$30k, and they had to fly us right back.
So in OP's friend's situation, I think it's a matter of accountability vs. convenience. At WAW LO didn't feel like causing a scene/trouble and thus just allowed boarding, and AC had to deny because AC is on the hook for the fine and transportation cost TALT.
Jul 7, 2019, 10:31 am
#25
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2004
Programs: AA, BA, Delta, SPG, Hilton
Posts: 718
Jul 7, 2019, 10:39 am
#26
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2004
Programs: AA, BA, Delta, SPG, Hilton
Posts: 718
(Essentially the governments make/force airlines to be enforcing immigration rules by imposing penalties on them. That is how I see it)
And that explains why you see all of this as a thing that is the responsibility of someone other than the pax. Do you drive through a stop sign because it wasn’t there three years ago?
And that explains why you see all of this as a thing that is the responsibility of someone other than the pax. Do you drive through a stop sign because it wasn’t there three years ago?
The analogy with stop sign is not a good analogy in this case. A "STOP" sign You can see, while a new regulation You have to research to find out. Unfortunately, this passenger was flying overseas for the second time in her life. And I will repeat - nowhere did I state that it is not HER fault. Her negligence created this situation. But it could have been easily resolved if she was explained to fill out this form at the airport BUD. And as I see from the comments - others agree with me on that.
Jul 7, 2019, 10:45 am
#28
Join Date: Aug 2012
Programs: AC E35K, NEXUS
Posts: 4,368
I understand not everyone reads the fine print in ticket purchase contracts or is as obsessive as I am about Googling the requirements of foreign countries I plan to visit, regarding what documents I require and what I am and am not allowed to bring in.
However, I think I see this as a reminder on my online checkin notices, even though I was born in Canada, so AC does make the effort to remind passengers who did not see it the first time. I don't see who ticketed the flight. Was it 014 or whatever LOT is, or something else? With whom did the passenger check in, and did the check in with AC separately or LOT for both, and what text was on the online checkin page(s)? Or did they check in in person and what was said at that dialogue? Is it possible the check in agent (not gate agent) said something and the passenger did not understand it? I don't think we know because we were not there. By the time the passenger gets to the LOT gate, nobody is going to do anything differently than they did.
The LOT gate agents may have seen the passport, but the human review is just to check the name-person match. The checking of border-crossing is done by the Machine That Goes Beep. Their Machine That Goes Beep just checks that the passenger's ID is valid for the destination of that flight. The passenger had the required credentials for their destination on that flight. Would it have been helpful if those agents had raised the alert one MORE time? Sure. Their duty? I'm not as sure.
However, the Machine That Goes Beep at AC required the passenger to produce an ETA because the passenger would require this to enter Canada.
AC did what it had to do. While evidently they did not guide the passenger by the nose through the steps to comply, nothing stopped the passenger from making calls or doing some Googling and returning to the gate agent with a newly minted eTA before departure. Nothing indicates they were blacklisted and frogmarched from the airport.
I think all of the companies involved met their legal obligation.
However, I think I see this as a reminder on my online checkin notices, even though I was born in Canada, so AC does make the effort to remind passengers who did not see it the first time. I don't see who ticketed the flight. Was it 014 or whatever LOT is, or something else? With whom did the passenger check in, and did the check in with AC separately or LOT for both, and what text was on the online checkin page(s)? Or did they check in in person and what was said at that dialogue? Is it possible the check in agent (not gate agent) said something and the passenger did not understand it? I don't think we know because we were not there. By the time the passenger gets to the LOT gate, nobody is going to do anything differently than they did.
The LOT gate agents may have seen the passport, but the human review is just to check the name-person match. The checking of border-crossing is done by the Machine That Goes Beep. Their Machine That Goes Beep just checks that the passenger's ID is valid for the destination of that flight. The passenger had the required credentials for their destination on that flight. Would it have been helpful if those agents had raised the alert one MORE time? Sure. Their duty? I'm not as sure.
However, the Machine That Goes Beep at AC required the passenger to produce an ETA because the passenger would require this to enter Canada.
AC did what it had to do. While evidently they did not guide the passenger by the nose through the steps to comply, nothing stopped the passenger from making calls or doing some Googling and returning to the gate agent with a newly minted eTA before departure. Nothing indicates they were blacklisted and frogmarched from the airport.
I think all of the companies involved met their legal obligation.
Jul 7, 2019, 10:49 am
#29
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Programs: AC SE100K, F9 100k, NK Gold, UA *S, Hyatt Glob, Bonvoy Titanium
Posts: 5,187
did passenger not have a long enough connection in WAW, with no data or free/paid Wifi to take ten seconds to google this and apply?
if so, what would have happened if a REAL travel emergency came up?
if so, what would have happened if a REAL travel emergency came up?
Jul 7, 2019, 10:59 am
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2010
Programs: AA
Posts: 14,726
These threads come up from time to time and as sure as eggs is eggs, if the passenger is denied boarding at their departure point (WAW in this case), the complaint is “why wasn’t I allowed to travel to (stopover point)”. Now we have a complaint that pac should have been denied boarding at first point
Unfortunate situation either way, but ultimately responsibility rests with the passenger not the airline.
