moondog

If the BWI people had screened their documents, they wouldn't have gone to DFW and back, and would only be on the hook for change fees.

Often1

Whether OP and his wife somewhere possessed documents which made them admissible to the Philippines has nothing to do with the question of whether they presented sufficient documents to AA. Apparently they did not and were thus properly denied boarding. This can be seen because the first DFW agent bent over backwards to help by advising that a birth certificate would do the trick, when it did not.

As to the BWI vs. DFW issue, the document check is there to protect the carrier, not the passenger. Thus, OP has no claim against AA for the error at BWI. If he takes that position, AA will certainly deny the claim. On the other hand, if he points out that while the end result would have been the same, it would have been less costly, time-consuming and stressful had the denial occured at BWI vs. DFW, there is a better chance that AA refunds (or issues a credit) as a customer service gesture rather than under an untenable contractual argument.

ashill

I think this focus on document checking being a legal obligation to protect the carrier rather than a customer service act is too narrow. Yes, it’s true that carrier protection is a legal requirement, but it’s also the right thing to do from a customer service perspective. Transporting someone across the Pacific to a place where they will inevitably be denied entry serves no one, least of all the passenger. If AA didn’t bother with the document check, customers would (rightly, I think) be angry that the airline didn’t warn them that they’d be denied entry before flying them across the world, regardless of the legal and financial implications for AA from the destination country.

That doesn’t change anything else you or anyone else who’s made an argument along these lines said.

(In fact, in this case, would AA even be responsible at all? It will be the onward carrier, presumably Asiana, that is actually transporting the OP to the Philippines. Presumably they would have denied boarding at ICN, but if they didn’t, it would be them paying the fines, not AA, right? Would the onward carrier pass some or all of the fine and repatriation expense on to AA?)

rickg523

Well, especially since AA at BWI sold the OP more unusable tickets under the premise that those would make travel possible. AA is culpable for the cost of those round trip tickets. Arguably the original one way tickets the OP purchased online are not the responsibility of AA. But they ought to at least offer them travel vouchers for those, since they dicked this family around pretty bad.
But if we know one thing about AA, it's that they aren't a customer accommodation kind of business, so I expect they'll have to go to Chris Elliott or some other mass media outlet to even get the upsell refunded.

Often1

To be clear. These are all interesting issues to raise in the context of customer goodwill, not as a contractual obligation to refund. Argue the former and there is little question of the answer from AA or the result if a passenger were to pursue the issue. Make the secondary request and there would have been a likely good result pre-pandemic. Now, in cash-crunch world, it's a toss up.

mvoight

Change fees? What are those?

mvoight

It isn't what you know it is what you can prove
1. A birth certificate, in most countries outside of the US, doesn't make you a citizen
2. A birth certificate would not show her father is currently a citizen
3, She did not have Filipino passports
4. If she could citizenship, her husband still wouldn't be able to go without proof of marriage, and I doubt they were carrying a marriage certificate
5. Someone also indicated, "That same Consulate explicitly mentions that dual citizens can enter the Philippines, but only with their Filipino passport or emergency travel document"
I am also assuming someone faxed them or AA a copy of her birth certificate, and a non certified / non notarized copy is not going to be generally accepted (no clue why AA suggested it)
In the end I hope they are able to at least get full credit for what they paid for the tickets. When I travel, I check for what the consulate or embassy if the country says, as well as what Timatic says, before booking and before traveling
I don't know what United to pays to have this on their website, but it would be great if AA also had it. Had it not been for FT, I would not have known it existed for public viewing

mvoight

When the tickets were sold, it was assume OP and spouse had the documents they needed to travel, and that country requires a return ticket.
It's not like AA made up a story claiming a return ticket was required when it was not. In my experience you get the most benefit during problems by not putting the blame or expressing anger with an airline. That generally does not get you the best results.

JDiver

Though it’s not as easy to find, Delta Airlines also offers IATA timaticweb2 searches here: https://www.timaticweb2.com/integrat...b61da&modify=1

I can’t imagine it’s a major cost for DL and UA, nor why AA doesn’t make a very clear statement on a pop up or page when one is booking an international ticket about documentation and a link to TIMATIC.

dls25

AA does have a link on their International Travel page
https://www.aa.com/i18n/travel-info/...nal-travel.jsp

moondog

I agree that change fees are usually a non-issue during the CV era. Furthermore, since the OP bought his tickets recently, there presumably isn't a change fee clause in the COC. That having been said, if there is, paying $300 is better than losing $3,000.

rickg523

Very Kafkaesque. The Clerk at Station A demands Document A. "You must have this to travel." Lowly civilian purchases Document A. Clerk at Station B then demands Document B which is available at the lowly civilian's residence, but he is now 1000 miles away.
In Kafka's world, the lowly civilan has no recourse and in fact will suffer legal sanctions if he complains. I think in our more sensible world, the OP will eventually receive a refund, regardless of his being angry at being yanked around and scammed out of cost of two round trip tickets to the Asia.

JDiver

It is conspicuously missing a link to any version timaticweb2 and is excessively vague without it. In fact, AA’s page contains misinformation.

E.g. “

• Valid for at least 6 months after the date you enter a foreign country.”

Untrue. Some nations do not require that. Mexico will merely issue an FM2 tourist visa with a date reflecting the passport expiry date in the length of time the bearer is allowed to remain if the date is less than six months, the maximum validity of an unextended FM2 visit. Others require a passport validity of six months past the maximum period a visitor can be admitted for - e.g. a year for some of those.

These issues are much more accurately addressed if one fills out a timaticweb form rather than some “one size fits all” advice from AA they’ll not stand behind if a passenger gets into trouble because they followed it.

JTK

American has their own site for requirements. Seems easy to use.
https://apply.joinsherpa.com/travel-...ericanairlines

If you put in United States to Phillipinese you get
Travel Restriction

Entry restrictions for international travellers

Most international travellers are not allowed to enter Philippines.

Additional details

These travel restrictions do not apply to: -Filipino citizens; -Spouses and children of Filipino citizens; -Children with special needs, regardless of age, of a Filipino citizen; -Foreign parent of minor Filipinos; -Foreign parent of Filipino children with special needs, regardless of age; -International travellers with long-term visas as long as they have valid and existing visas at the time of entry and have a booking with an accredited quarantine facility. For more details about exemptions please check the source.
I would think you need proof for any of this to apply.

Antarius

Analogy: You show up to an airport with no ticket and no pants. Check in agent says, you need to have pants. Passenger goes and grumbles and buys pants. Now agent says you need to have a ticket. Passenger says, you told me to buy pants so I just bought pants.

Fulfilling one step does not invalidate every subsequent one.