Often1

Or, if that Visa were presented, it could be read as "Etats Schengen FRA" with the third word presumably meaning "France".

Again, not an issue of what the Visa means, but how it would be read in light of the TIMATIC entry.

percysmith

If my hypothesis is right, who is to blame?
- strictly speaking AA is dead wrong. This is a Schengen visa
- do we need to give any allowance on "bad visa design"?

percysmith

An observation and two questions

1. Timatic may be almost always correct but operator's interpretation are sometimes incorrect. We (may have) a "Etats Schengen FRA" case here. We also had a case where CX SIN check-in wrongly interpreting PVG 144-hour TWOV precludes pax from leaving PVG terminal buildings https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/cath...ver-rules.html.

2. If in doubt, what is airline's responsibility to try to contact the destination country's immigration authorities? I know Australia ETA can be reached by telex. Vietnam Immigration can be also http://www.facebook.com/cathaypacifi...95250987285269 . We know OP's DIL successfully contacted the Italian embassy, but AA failed to be satisfied with the embassy's assurance.

3. Whose CoC or credit card liability is it if airlines were eventually proved to be incorrect, regardless or negligence or recklessness?

Andriyko

I wonder, then, how thousands of Schengen visa holders are travelling every day if your and AA's reading of TIMATIC is correct...

They are. There are some restrictions (for example, you may be refused entry on a single entry visa issued by one Member State if you are trying to enter a different Member State, unless you can show that the latter is either a point of transit and the destination is the former or that the latter is just the first stop and the principal destination is the former). I believe Germany and Austria were rather strict at some point about this. I'd think that this is what the language about a visa being valid for a Member States purports to mean. But all 'C' visas are valid for 'Schengen' rather than specific countries as some here are trying to imply. There is simply no such visa that the OP's daughter-in-law could have obtained (apart from a long-term national D visa that would be specific to a Member State but would still allow travel through other Schengen countries).

'FRA" indicates the country that issued the visa, not the country that it is valid for. The three letter designation comes with a blank sticker. Basically it's a French visa sticker. A UK visa has the same design, and it would say 'GBR' where 'FRA' is on a Schengen visa but valid for 'United Kingdom'

skunker

So, the agent is allowed to interpret the meaning of a visa, but not the meaning of TIMATIC? In that case I'm surprised they didn't say they could only visit Frankfurt.

grrizzli

Nowhere did the OP imply that the visa validity box stated "France". There is NO "literalist" interpretation of TIMATIC that would justify not letting OP's daughter-in-law board the plane. The Schengen visa design is completely straightforward -- it is not misleading.

It's about time to stop offering ludicrous defenses of AA in this case. Obviously AA agents in Iowa were not accustomed to foreign nationals travelling abroad. Even though the foreign national in question had one of the most common visas in the world. The blame lies 100% with the AA agents and the airline that failed to train them.

CrazyJ82

I don't see any way around this being a training problem that is entirely AA's fault and for which the airline should compensate op's family member. This isn't as hard as some here are making it out to be. The design of the Schengen visa is well-known or should be to those whose job it is to inspect these documents. So should be the interpretation if "Schengen States" on the validity line. There's no legitimate way to argue that a properly trained AA employee could have been at all confused about this. No other airline on which my partner has traveled with a Schengen visa has had this problem. I mean, print out a list of Schengen States and leave it at the gate podium if they need to. But what otherwise is the solution here? European governments redesign their visa stickers for the benefit of a confused AA agent?

arlflyer

I feel like I have lost my mind here. Wasn't the whole Schengen thingy cooked up due to the fact that, yeah, there's a buncha countries in Europe, and, yeah, people travel between them a lot, so let's make the whole thing one deal and be on with it? I mean, if the airlines are running their own set of shadow diplomatic rules on the side then I guess that's their prerogative, and I get that the all-knowing-ones here are going to say "Well, the traveler shoulda known". But as a layperson I gotta say it's a bit weird if the airlines have more resolution than the countries they fly to, basically imposing diplomatic regulations upon sovereign states beyond what those states themselves have put forth.

mikeef

Have we established yet that the OP definitely had the Schengen States visa as opposed to one that was just good for France?

Mike

Dave Noble

From what I can see, the OP has not clarified exactly what the visa stated - until the OP states what the exact details of documentation held stated, it is speculation - asserting that AA was in the wrong without the information , seems flawed

AA may have been in the wrong or it may not have been

Andriyko

The OP has not confirmed what was written on the daughter-in-law's visa; however, given that 'C' type visas issued by countries that are parties to the Schengen agreement are normally uniform Schengen visas, and limited territorial validity Schengen visas are issued in exceptional cases, we can assume that the visa in question was valid for Schengen countries. Had it been any other type of a visa I'd be more inclined to think that it was a limited territorial validity visa.

Often1

I see this as a failure between the respective foreign ministries and IATA (which may be AA for these purposes). The language in TIMATIC is carefully vetted and is designed to be read in plain English by a person with no understanding of the underlying issue. Thus, the foreign ministry ---- when approving ---- the IATA (AA) language, ought to have flagged the fact that the "C" visa, if issued by any country, is valid for all Schengen countries.

All comes back to the fact that the system is designed such that one need not know what Schengen is, only that there is such a thing as a Schengen visa.

mvoight

I had thought UK was not a participant is Schengen visas.

ijgordon

I kind of have to agree that the system should be designed such that an agent would not need to know what Schengen is. New countries have been admitted in the past, correct? Not sure if anyone has dropped out. Even as a somewhat who usually goes to Europe once or twice a year, I couldn't tell you whether a specific country in Europe is Schengen or not. (I know the UK isn't...).
But I would think that if the traveler took AA to small claims court and could prove that they had the correct documentation but were still denied boarding due to agent error/misinterpretation, they would be owed compensation.

jordyn

Yes, it says what it says and you are misinterpreting what it says. It says that the Valid For line of the visa must include the country that the passenger is flying to. The Valid For line almost certainly says "Etas Schengen" which means "Schengen States", of which Italy is one. Therefore, the Valid For line includes the country that the passengers were traveling to and met the requirements outlined in TIMATIC.

The inclusion of the "FRA" label does not modify the validity of the visa or the To: line in any way.