kiwicyclo

A friend of mine was recently "detained" by Air NZ in the transit area of Auckland international airport.

Short story;

Denied entry to USA in May 2014, put on the next flight to NZ (Air NZ), requested to pay $685, did not.

Traveled extensively on Air NZ for the next 4 years, NZ and to Australia (Not USA). Booked both on line and through travel agents.

2 weeks ago, prevented from boarding a flight to Sydney (booked and paid for through Air NZ Website), at the aircraft door, detained by Air NZ (not police, customs etc) presented a letter to pay $685 there and then, plus additional costs to catch the next days flight, another $354. Was not allowed to use bathroom, charge phone, head back into "NZ"

Air NZ have not provided requested information, showing where the passenger accepted the charges for return travel in 2014 (did have a valid return ticket for another date), or communications sent requesting / demanding payment, no collection action with an agency. Just some "screen shots" and the demand letter.

The $685 + $354 were paid for on that day over the phone and only then was the traveler allowed to leave the transit area.

So, can Air NZ, a commercial entity, detain you against your will at Auckland International Airport?

wayoutwest

No, basically kidnaping by holding some one against their will. Friend needs to make police complaint.

NZbutterfly

Was the $685 for the return US flight?

It looks like this should have gone through debt collector channels.

sbiddle

They really should be seeking legal advice.

wackyflyer

I’m not sure this is the right forum for legal advice. I think most would say it’s rather iffy.

Air NZ certainly don’t have the right to detain someone at the airport. Denying boarding to a flight at their discretion maybe somewhere in their t&c’s.

I wasn’t aware an airline could force you to pay for the cost of a flight home if you’re denied entry into USA. Isn’t it the airlines responsibility to ensure customers have valid visa/ESTA?

I guess if the pax lied on a visa/esta and that was the reason for denying entry the airline could take the pax to court for the costs.

nzkarit

Need legal advice.

I haven't read the Aviation legislation but at least when on the plane the captain is pretty close to judge, jury and executioner and not 100% sure when in the process of checkin, boarding, door closed, etc the aviation laws kick in.

But with only one side of the story presented this does not sound well handled, as should have been stopped/dealt with well before this point.

kiwicyclo

Yes - flight back from USA after denied entry

kyanar

ESTA isn't a Visa. An airline can uplift a pax with only an ESTA, but ultimately the pax can be denied issuance of a visa on arrival and entry into the US by CBP for any or no reason at their exclusive discretion - and this would be through no fault of the airline. It's entirely fair for the airline to charge the pax the costs in this case.

Thai-Kiwi

Slightly OT from OP's questions.

Indeed, a Visa is no 'guarantee' of entry to any country - it (simply) provides the Immigration Officer with a better level of assurance of the pax's bona fides for travel and entry as per the requirements of that country, but the Immigration Officer can still deny entry. Technically, it is the issuing of an Entry Permit that is the approval to enter and stay under conditions - although for 99.9% of the traveling public, a Visa and Entry Permit are indistinguishable - especially since the latter is electronic in many cases.

Think of it this way:

Visa: provides a level of assurance to Immigration officials and Airline pax is likely to be granted entry at the border point. Often physically affixed into pax's passport. Generates revenue as well.

Entry Permit: the approval to granted at the border point for entry (under the conditions specified - usually by category/duration). Usually the 'stamp' in the passport from the Immigration Officer.

codyc1515

This would be understandable if this happened on their next flight with Air NZ following the issue. However, given such an amount of time has passed I find it to be fairly unreasonable. Your friend may want to seek legal advice or take it to the media.

LondonElite

No, a commercial entity cannot hold someone against their wil. Your friend should seek legal advice.

Could a moderator please give this thread a meaningful title?