Often1

The analysis begins and ends with the fact that it was 100% the passenger's obligation to comply with all documentation requirements. At all times.

The sole reason carriers check documents is so that they won't be fined and otherwise penalized if they deliver a passenger without proper documents. It has nothing to do with the passenger's well-being.

Had whatever carrier she intended to fly onward from LAX permitted her to board and had she been denied entry and returned to LAX, she still would have required a ticket back from LAX and it would have been hers to purchase.

Carriers do often check documents at the initial domestic check-in, but that is solely at their discretion and perhaps because it is a way for people who have forgotten a document to run home and get it.

AA100k

Back in my US Airways days before the merger brought me here I attempted to purchase an international flight online with a passport expiration date on file that had breached the expiration date rule by a few weeks. A warning appeared on my screen and I was able to purchase the flight but I knew I needed a new passport in order to travel. Not sure if they still warn you in advance but if they don’t, they should. It’s an easy thing to do and might prevent these problems. I’m sure many people have probably had similar unfortunate experiences.

ijgordon

Not sure that's entirely true. Not exactly the same situation but if you purchase a ticket and then are denied a visa, I think you can get a refund. I believe it's in the fare rules.

ashill

First, as rufflesinc noted, AA doesn't fly LAX-ICN, so it must have been another airline operating the international segment. Therefore, AFAIK, AA had no responsibility whatsoever for checking the traveler's international travel docs, in CLT or anywhere else. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that.)

However, the traveler now has a mostly-unused ticket; most of the value on the ticket would be for the LAX-ICN-Laos segments. She should at the very least have been able to use that value for a ticket back home, less the change fee. And if there was availability in her fare class (a big if), she probably should have been able to use the value for the return ticket to fly LAX-CLT (assuming the ticket included a return with an AA LAX-CLT segment). Either way, I think some sympathy from AA in allowing the OP to use her existing ticket, space-available, to get back home to CLT would be appropriate in this case even if it took bending the rules. (I'm not suggesting that AA should bring her back to CLT at their expense or create space on a full flight. And there's no lost revenue here; it's not like there's any possibility that she's using this "invalid passport" excuse to get around fare rules for a CLT-LAX round trip. Just saying that, if AA were still an airline with employees empowered to be decent customer service agents, they should be able to find a way to get her home using the ticket she already had.)

I'm not sure whether it's the LAX-ICN-operating airline or AA who would control the ticket at this point.

If she did buy a completely new ticket to get back to CLT, she should have nearly the full value of the CLT-Laos ticket available to use (after paying the change fee).

JDiver

Interesting; I’ve not seen that before.

Oh, wait - Turkey is an example where I think that did work. Some had plans and tickets, but when Turkey shut down visa issuance to American residents and citizens in retaliation for US actions following the termination by Turkey of several US Embassy employees, most Airlines allowed revundability for ticket cancellation for inability to get a visa.

Of course, this situation does not meet that criterion.

Dave Noble

There are some fares that have that in the rules, but that is not at all common - I think I have only ever seen it in ATW fare rules

This, of course, would not assist the OP since the OP was not in the situation of applying for a visa and then having it denied

Not necessarily true - it may well be a simple non refundable ticket which may not allow such benefits - it depends on the fare rules

warakorn

Believe me: it is better for the pax to have competent gate agents at the international outport (LAX) than clueless agents at the start of a domestic feeder flight.

nrr

The only way AA (or US Air) would know the expiration date of your pp is from info YOU provide. [In your case, had you "updated" your pp info, prior to purchasing the ticket, with wrong info they would have no way of knowing.]

DMPHL

What does this mean? I mean, it's true, but isn't it also true that it's better to have a competent agent at the start of a domestic feeder segment than a clueless agent at the international gateway? Isn't it better to have a competent agent at both? Isn't a competent agent always preferable a clueless one?

1kBill

I used to see this rule quite often back in the day when I was purchasing a lot of tickets from various places in Asia to the USA. It was probably in place for people who needed visas for the USA and didn't know when or even if they would get them.

But to reiterate what others have said, it is absolutely 100% traveler responsibility to ensure proper documentation for their destination.

ijgordon

It took a few attempts (but less than 5!) but I found it on a nonrefundable fare JFK-BOM on LH (SLX06NCE):
REFUND PERMITTED BEFORE DEPARTURE IN CASE OF
REJECTION OF VISA. EMBASSY STATEMENT REQUIRED.

So I can't really say how common it is, and whether it's airline-specific (which may be the case, I see it on a lot of LH fares).

And yes, I realize, and already noted, that this is not the same situation as the OP, just a point that it's not always 100% the travelers responsibility.

bchandler02

You could stop after the bold sentence. When is "I wasn't aware" ever an excuse?

To be fair, I do think this is a stupid rule. If you can't travel on a passport with < 6 months of validity left on it, then it is effectively expired.

sdix

If pax checking in at origin all the way thru to Laos then AA would/should have seen the expiration date. To issue a BP for the int'l segment at origin the passport would have to be scanned. If we are talking about separate PNR's then what happened to this pax is what happens!

Often1

The only carrier I know of which uniformyl includes visa denial as a basis for a full refund is LH. Other carriers offer this in fare rules from POS countries where obtaining a visa is a routine problem. Note that showing up at the gate without a required visa is not a basis for a refund. This situation covers instances where one books far in advance to obtain a good fare and is then denied a visa (a particular problem for travel where one must show proof of a ticket in order to obtain the visa). The reasoning is that this stops people from purchasing fully refundable tickets for the purpose of obtaining a visa and then cancelling for a refund and purchasing a discounted inlfexible ticket.

tkelvin69

This isn't a blanket rule applying to all countries. Each make their own requirements for entry and 6 months is reasonable as you often are granted 90-180 day stays.