brunos

Thanks for stepping in.
Have you denied boarding to any French passport holder residing in US, because they have no "motif imperieux"?
Is AF asking for any proof of "French residence" from those with a US address on their French passport? If so, what proof are you asking?

offvoice

I also wrote to my deputé (10th circonscription - MEA) to better understand why nothing is said/done around the matter.

I'm a French citizen, currently in France but residing in East Africa, with a North Africa address on my passport - my wife is in France, living in France. My understanding of the current measures is that I can only go to East Africa for a compelling matter (raison impérieuse) that will solely be appreciated by a custom agent at CDG. And even then, if I make it back there and fancy, say, seeing my wife in France, 2 weeks from now, I would need another reason impérieuse or be able to prove my French residency (which I don’t have at the moment).

I'm obviously not saying that’s the current plan, but not planing to do something is last time I checked not a reason to renounce rights that have been granted.

I would encourage any french FTer living outside the EU to write to their local representative. As stated in the quoted message above, the likelihood of receiving an answer is small, the likelihood of it being read somehow less small (I hope!).

offvoice

Apologies for quoting myself, but I actually already received an answer I'm guessing more effective than Easter Europe delegates.
The fact that they mention that "chaque situation peut s'apprécier au cas par cas" is beyond me, but anyway, appreciate the answer. After what they mentioned, I took upon myself to find the initiatives they mentioned, and found this (in case some of you might want to join). I signed it and shared it in my network, hoping you can do the same.

maalloc

Thanks for the feedback, and the link.

Yes, they are basically acknowledging what we all feared: that the right to leave or come back would be subject to discrimination from border agents or check-in staff.

Seems like the best strategy to be able to leave/go back to France is to bring in tons of paperwork (the sheer height of a stack of paper does wonders in France), and pray that the various agents had a good night's rest, a pleasant breakfast, and good bowel movement in the morning.

blairvanhorn

Quote:

Originally Posted by offvoice

The fact that they mention that "chaque situation peut s'apprécier au cas par cas" is beyond me, but anyway, appreciate the answer.

Indeed, but I think you're looking at the glass half-empty, and I prefer to look at it half-full 😏: the list of motifs impérieux is pretty boiler-plate, and if you have good reason(s) and documents to back you up - as well as AF ground staff - then you should be able to travel. At least this is what I keep telling myself so as not to lose hope!

Amrikibibaris

Yes, I do and did have the number. That was the service I was going through. You may have missed the subsequent post in which I reported that the agents there successfully made the change I requested without fee but only after requesting a dérogation. It would be nice if, under the circumstances, AF at least explicitly reinstated its policy in place for most of 2020 for flights in/out of France. I appreciate how, on an apparently ad hoc basis, different stations and even individual agents make what most of us would consider "the right call" in the face of what seems to be a counterproductive policy. My hope would be that AF's commercial policy "gurus" will wake up and realize what's going on so they can announce and institutionalize better policy. It should be a no-brainer that AF wants to maintain the loyalty of those of us who stick with the company no matter what and complain mostly out of a spirit of loyalty to an airline that means a lot to us and which we can't wait to fly again even as the pandemic rages around us.

I'll drag this out to provide an example of an anomaly I pointed out to AF that was favorably resolved for me but without being sure it was resolved for all concerned. Those who fly P class in/out of CDG know about the Hertz-Drive-U service within a certain radius of CDG. Last year, just as coronavirus was about to force us into lockdown, I upgraded a J class flight to P en route to CDG. After doing so, I requested the Hertz service and received responses that it was all set up. Then I received apologies saying that the service was not available to those who upgrade to P. I replied that I was puzzled, since this would be the first time I would be deprived of any aspect of any service in an upgraded class. I added that there was no notation anywhere that I was aware of stating that the Hertz service would be unavailable. After a response that essentially said "You make a lot of good points, and we'll check with our superiors," I was told that, because I had pointed this out and given my loyalty, AF would grant an exception. I answered that I was not seeking favors and would only accept the Hertz car if it represented a change of policy or a commitment to review the policy to make the service available or clearly state that it would not be. I have no idea how this played out (except that I did use the car) but took it as further confirmation of AF's frequent incoherence at the level of management. I repeat that the agents caught in the middle usually try their best to find solutions even in the midst of silly contradictions.

But back to the main point of this thread and expanding on what brunos asked, how are you treating non-French nationals with legal/primary residence in France without motifs impérieux? I would also repeat the questions I made to someone at IAD regarding non-French nationals with primary legal residence in France who left France after 31 January to reach their so-called "country of origin," in this case Americans: Are you or will you deny them boarding because they did not leave France under a motif impérieux? Will you ask them (and presumably every traveler who left France after 31 January) to produce their attestation prior to leaving France? Will you already somehow be aware of that (i.e., via your computer database) at check-in? Also, as brunos asks, what proof are you asking people produce?

FYI to all, I know that the French nationals out there who are extremely, and understandably, exercised about this continue to stress that they, as French nationals, deserve priority and special treatment, I will speak up as a non-French resident of France to argue that we should be in some solidarity about this. My primary residence is in France, and it would be as devastating to me not to be able to return to the place I consider home. I may not have exercised my right to apply for French citizenship, but I fully consider myself an immigrant here. It may satisfy the chauvinistic tendencies of some to draw what I consider a tendentious distinction, and it may be that in practice and under French law that is entirely justified. I assure you, however, that I would never begrudge any legal permanent resident of the U.S. (i.e., "green card holder") his/her rights to be able to return to the U.S. under any circumstances. That has, fortunately, been the policy under the benighted Trump administration and now the Biden administration. On est tous ensemble dans ce combat.

And now I'll sit back down and resume eating my yogurt...

Amrikibibaris

I probably shouldn't have done so, but I signed it as well and appended the following in my mediocre French:

Amrikibibaris

Exactly.

As I think about what I hope will be my return to France in late March, after leaving earlier on the basis of traveling to my "country of origin" (UGH!), here is what I currently envisage:

--COVID tests on both sides of the Atlantic (once my biggest source of concern) in hand and no problem.
--Hassle/threats/intimidation at CDG preparing to board (by the police more than by the AF ground staff).
--Minimal to no hassle/threats/intimidation by CBP at arrival in IAD.
--Acceptance to board for my return on the basis of my primary residence in France by AF staff at IAD (based on what I've been told so far).
--God knows freaking what on arrival at CDG.
To expand a bit on the latter:
--First hassle with PAF over my motif for leaving France, leading to intimidation/possible threats in the form of taking me out of line for further questioning and dark hints of being returned to my pays d'origine and/or possible revocation of my titre de séjour.
--Second hassle in the form of a full presentation of my documentation (less-than-wonderful memories of my annual visits to la Préfecture de police de Paris), consisting of my stack of papers that will include last gas bill, tax statements, bank statements, possibly the acte de vente for my apartment, and any freaking other piece of official paper I can come up with) followed by more specific intimidation and threats.
--Eventual release, perhaps accompanied by a theatrical demand by customs agents to open and rifle through my checked baggage, possibly resulting in the confiscation of any jars of peanut butter that I may have placed inside.

--Or ... nothing, exactly as occurred the last two times I returned (in July and October).

If it's the first, and since I'm traveling P, it will be either entertaining or a freakout for the AF agent accompanying me.

And none of this takes into account the implications of a possible new lockdown (which I prefer over the much too gentle confinement) while I'm in the U.S.

blairvanhorn

I do feel that traveling in P will definitely help your case (you will have the AF ground staff with you at 100%).

And, yes, a new lockdown is a distinct possibility, though I don't think it could be any worse (travel-wise) than the restrictions currently in place.

blairvanhorn

P.S. I remember your mentioning a cat. If you do use the cat as an argument to get back in, I would avoid any uncomfortable Zoom situations with the PAF.

😏🤔😂

San Gottardo

On a case-by-case basis? "Should" be able to travel?? For crying out loud, we are paying garganteous sums of money for a largely overstaffed bureaucracy, their generous vacations and pensions - and they can't even formulate a text that provides certainty about what the rules are? It's left to ambiguity? The only difference between that and countries that are far lower on the HDI scale is that bribes aren't involved. But it's scandalous how they run and administer a country with their "maybe, depends on" vague method, executed by people who on top of applying vague rules typically don't even know them and apply their own personal interpretation. The case above of somone being refused passing the border at CDG despite being in transit is one example of where all this ambiguity and space for personal interpretation leads. People stress out, cannot plan, and waste a lot of time preparing things that are not demanded on paper but may be required by whoever sits in the PAF booth that day. What a banana republic.

blairvanhorn

San Gottardo, you're preaching to the choir as far as I'm concerned!

Chuvash

How dare you second guess ENArques, Vicars of the Republic? Don’t you know they got 16/20 in Math to get into l’X when they were 20? You think you know better?

In any case, travel is for the “rich” so if you can stick it to the rich it’s always good.

postville

This difference makes countries being lower on the HDI scale more reliable than e.g. France: The option of a bribe can give you a higher security/guarantee, you can be more sure to know what to expect. So, in this case, I would prefer to travel to/through/from such countries than e.g. France.

bostontraveler

And remember, a part of HDI is education and literacy. Something that appears to have been lost on the authors and those executing this ridiculous policy.