garykung

For those who suggested DOT, I do have 1 question for you - why do you think DOT can help?

While it is true that the persons involved with OP got IDBed. But it is not due to an oversale situation. DOT's current regulation only regulates IDB situation based on oversale. The only thing OP can get from a DOT complaint is a chance to discuss with AA, which is also available with the SCC option.

So out of curiosity, what can the DOT complaint accomplish while SCC can't?

percysmith

Appealing to the regulator doesn't require a day off to attend court, that would've been my main motivation.

The complaint would be more on AA generally not fulfilling a carriage obligation, not something as specific as oversell.

Andriyko

Nobody said that the UK was a party to the Schengen agreement. However, all EU/EEA countries have the same standard for the visa sticker. I just pointed out that the three letter designator, which appears almost on the same level as the 'valid for' line, only means which country issued the visa not the country that the visa is valid for.

Thank you for confirming. Your daughter-in-law's visa was valid for all Schengen countries, and she was wrongly denied boarding.

arlflyer

If OP's relative already accepted compensation from AA, were there terms attached to that? (Such as that being the end of it)

RogerD408

TIMATIC instructions should begin with READ ENTIRE DOCUMENT. When the agent is looking for a way to say no (as many do) they will stop after the first section that does not consider exceptions. If you can't convince the agent to keep reading you are stuck. Even showing the consulate pages gets you nowhere since they are told to go by TIMATIC. I wish there was a way to HUCA when dealing face to face!

ijgordon

It logs the complaint in the database. @:-)
Normally it also "forces" AA to respond (with a "real" response) to the passenger, although that's already happened, which is partly why I said they "might also" want to file the complaint but SCC was the best option.

garykung

The problem is not every case goes to trial, even with SC cases. Many cases get settled before the trials.

​​​​​​​While AA is required to file a response, I don't think many are interested in the reasoning, but the compensation that comes with it.

carlosdca

The thing is that in this particular case, THERE WAS NO EXCEPTION.
The OP's relatives had a generic C SCHENGEN VISA, that, BY DEFINITION allows entry to the 26 member states.
(On what embassy one gets the visa and what country one visits first is completely irrelevant, once the visa sticker is on the passport the visa is valid for all 26 member states)




And I know a lot about Schengen visas since I traveled on those for 10 years, 4-5 times per year before becoming a US citizen and I have tons of co-workers from all over the world that have and continue to travel on Schengen Visas. The unicorn visa with something other than "ETATS SCHENGEN" (or equivalent in other language) in the field VALID TO is a myth created on this FT thread. It does not exist, it wouldn't be a C Schengen Visa.

Having said that, I have not heard of anybody other than the OP encountering a denied boarding pass issue when on a Schengen visa
Traveling on a Schengen visa is VERY common and there are thousands of people traveling on it from the US to any of the 26 schengen countries everyday.
It is not an obscure visa to a small african country. It is not a complicated TWOV rule or anything like that.
I understand that AA's agents rely on TIMATIC and can't learn the rules for entry into every single country in the world, but given how common the schengen visa is this is something that the agents should be trained on (that in the valid to field, it will say Schengen States, not the name of a specific country).
This is a ridiculous as an agent in Europe denying a boarding pass because someone has a VISA to the United States but destination is Los Angeles, California and California is not mentioned in the the visa.

Too bad the OP's relatives did not stand their grounds as calling a supervisor would have probably resolved the issue as pax traveling on Schengen visa is every day business for american airlines.

JDiver

Thank you for clarifying; that makes a crucial difference.

The principle here is, if the permitted states line says Etats Schengen, AA improperly denied boarding. The agent interpreted TIMATUC strictly and anyone else in the communications chain did as well. IATA ought to revise their display to include the more usual “Etats Schengen”, but that’s not your principal concern. Asking to speak to a supervisor may have well resolved the issue, but the issue wasn’t resolved and “Lisa” was denied boarding.)

Follow through (you can advise “Joe and Lisa”) with AA as I’ve suggested above, with the executive you’d prefer to address. (I’d recommend Sean Bentel), as AA needs to inform their agents via supervisor or help desk if the visa is for Etats Schengen that is inclusive of all Schengen signatory states.

Be sure to be succinct, attach documentation (including the visa), and be clear about your expectations - the reimbursement you expect (but AA is likely to de line lost hotel bookings as “special, incidental or consequential damages“). You might also mention it’s likely other passengers have been or will be affected and corrective action with staff will help remedy this.

You might want to send a copy to the US Department of Transportation.

Send a copy to

Aviation Consumer Protection Division, C-75
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590

And yes, I ‘m pretty sure I’ve heard of restricted visas allowing specific states to be visited. They are rare, but iirc I recall one regarding Spain. Irrelevant to this case. In diplomatic - political issues, never say “never”.

arlflyer

Don't we need to know what this aforementioned compensation was, and under what terms it was accepted?

ijgordon

Speak for yourself, many might be interested in both, one might lead to the other (it has for me), and lastly, enough complaints about the topic could result in some type of enforcement action. So there's plenty of reason to file the complaint.

khibner

No terms were attached to the little bit of compensation that we did receive.

mikeef

I give you a lot of credit. To me, it's about the compensation.

Had I been in this situation, my wife would have had to take over the case a long time ago, at the point when my head actually exploded.

Mike

CaptainMiles

I think there are two problems here.

One stems AA's (and every airline's) reliance on TIMATIC. The CoC states that AA may refuse to transport if "the travel documents of such passenger are not in order". The CoC does not state that the travel documents must comply with whatever is written in TIMATIC. It is AA who is choosing to use TIMATIC, and the passenger in never advised in advance that that is the actual requirement at the airport. In this case, the passenger had all documents in order, but TIMATIC's language was ambiguous and AA agent interpreted it incorrectly. Clearly the fault is with AA for relying on TIMATIC, and AA can then subrogate to IATA for providing lousy language in TIMATIC.

The other problem is a more practical one. How is an agent in Des Moines supposed to know that "Etats Schengen" means "Schengen states", without a requirement to know the French language? More so, how is that agent supposed to know that "Schengeni államok" is "Schengen states" in Hungarian? And, as @Often1 pointed out, how is that agent going to know whether Schengeni is a travel zone or a German sausage?

thoglette

They are supposed to be competent at their job. If that means knowing how "Schengen states" is spelt in 26 languages they better bloody know all of them.

Being hired by the lowest bidder for the contract is not an excuse for cluelessness.

It's not even like this visa is something new - somewhere I have a passport from the nineties with an E/S visa. Hell, there's a 50/50 chance the agent wasn't out of school when the Schengen agreement was signed.