Tobias-UK

I agree. However, where an airline contacts the relevant foreign authority to verify the position, it is not unreasonable for them to rely on that information even if that information is subsequently found to be incorrect. In that context the Article 2 defence comes into play.

ds2016

I thought I might add my own experience just to provide some balance. I was due to fly to LHR-JFK last month. Got to the First wing in the morning with a bag to check in about 35 minutes before the departure time, so very very late already. The very lovely lady at the check in desk started the check in process and pointed out to me that I didn't have a valid ESTA (Expired a week before). She got me booked in the next flight while I sorted out my ESTA which took a while. This was on a cheap I class inventory fare. So my experience has been of BA check in agents bending over backwards to make sure I fly to my destination even though they were well within their rights to send me home packing.

My point being, don't assume bad intentions when this could be simply a case of miscommunication/misinformation over which the check in agent had no control of. With regards to how far you want to take it, only you know if you have the appetite for it.

stifle

That would guarantee the passenger a valid claim under regulation 261. You were assuredly admissible to the UK, and denying you boarding on a flight to there would have been entirely inappropriate.

Gshumway

In the US they check passports at the origin airport to prevent from issues further down the line. I.e. fly OAK to PHX to Mexico, you have to have your passport checked in OAK before boarding.

I do feel that is the right thing to do and not stop you in the middle of the journey.

Knickam

When I am flying to the middle east via LHR and DOH from ABZ on BA/QA/QA
I am always asked if i have a Visa in ABZ at check in for my final destination.

I doubt very much they understand it when I show it out to them as it is in Arabic and no details are entered into the computer by the agent.

Visa is also checked by Qatar in LHR and Doha and they do seem to enter details into the system.

warakorn

Well, all the traveller has to do is to prove that there are cases, where an eTA number is not required for German citizens to enter Canada. Hence, the software implementation was sloppy. That would have been the fault by BA.

Moreover, it's not clear whether UK law applies here. OP may sue BA from the point of origin (presumably a German airport).

But only if the relevant Canadian authorities were really contacted and they have given this guidance. It is the burden of proof of BA to show that this has really happened.
I doubt that. It's more likely the BA visa desk or some visa expert was consulted by BA, and not someone from CBSA.

Tobias-UK

And where is the evidence of this?

SuperCargo

It’s just so much more believable that BA didn’t really speak with the CBSA (or spoke to a random part of the Canadian government that wouldn’t know about these matters) than to think that a proper representative of the CBSA would get such a basic fact wrong. Work permits come with eTAs, and that was very clearly explained a couple times in the process (I applied for a permit for an employee earlier this year).

Tobias-UK

That is not evidence. Let’s look at it another way, what motive would BA have to unnecessarily deny the OP boarding?

SuperCargo

Fair enough, you’re right that that’s not evidence. The flip side, then, is what evidence is there that BA did contact CBSA, given that the information provided is so blatantly wrong?

i don’t think there’s an evil motive behind BA denying boarding — I just think that the first agent got it wrong and BA is shirking responsibility following that.

Dambus

If it eliminates all risk of a fine at zero cost?

Not sure how many of those replying to this thread have travelled with BA recently on any kind of a (working) visa but IME BA check-in staff appear to be particularly fearful of making a mistake (some internal sanctions perhaps?) and most likely to get confused by the requirements of the check-in system.

(In the last 18 months I have travelled between Canada and the US, Ireland and the UK (while based in the US on an L1 visa) with a combination of EI, AA, UA and BA)

Enigma368

100% agree with this. I think there is a fairly big incentive for an airline like BA to err on the side of caution and refuse boarding when they are not sure.

I am not really following whether the OP needed an eTA or not but if he did not and BA were completely in the wrong, then they should, as good customer service if nothing else, compensate for any reasonable costs the OP incurred to get to his final destination.

I don't think it really matters if they got bad advice or who they got the advice from, ultimately if they as a company incorrectly denied boarding to someone, they should hold their hands up and do the right thing.

navylad

The way I see it, but only from having read what Canadian's own website states, the traveller is required to have an eTA irrespective of whether they have a work permit. They are provided with the number of their eTA if their work permit is more recently issued (which it was in the case of the OP) which they can use to demonstrate they have an eTA. BA requested the OP to provide proof of their eTA in the form of this number, OP stated unable to do so, BA ask Canadian immigration I have a traveller who is unable to provide details of their eTA,BA informed to advice to apply for a new eTA (same advice as in on the eTA FAQ on their website), by the OPs own admission they are unsure whether they can apply for a further eTA. BA provide this advice to the traveller who insists they don't need to. BA trying to help the traveller offers to fly them to BOS instead.

BA customer service could have been improved by ensuring the eTA number had been requested at the point of departure rather than in LHR and by knowing that you can look for your eTA number online but legally the onus is on the traveller to demonstrate they have the required documentation, which includes the eTA (irrespective of whether this is issued automatically with a work permit or not, irrespective of whether the traveller has been able to travel to Canada previously or after the event).

BA may well be risk adverse when it comes to requiring documentation as per the book, it is a legally defensible position and the COC clearly place the responsibility upon the traveller.

As I understand it, legally BA seam to be correct here no matter how frustrating it is for the traveller or how much people protest that the individual was IDB, they have not been. Therefore, the complaint is moreover a customer service issue and, should the OP wish to pursue it, they should do so on this basis and avoid a legal argument which they are unlikely to win.

I wish the OP luck in this pursuit.

flamboyant 1

BA did not even believe the Eta could be automatically issued. Insisting I get a new one would have been against Canadian immigration rules (and likely not possible). I did not try this obviously while also in PR proceeding.

I wonder why the Canadian Authorities did not suggest to BA to look up the ETA number (when this is possible and when the call was made the agent had my work permit in hand). With that work permit number and all details on it Canadians authorities could have even found the ETA number, I guess. It's sad they call out of sight behind that transit desk.

And of course there is an incentive to err on the side of caution and employees and not empowered at all at that level.

Dambus

Well, that's a relief. Great that everything has been fully clarified and resolved.

Bottom line is that either:

i) The agent was 100% correct and therefore the dozens of other examples shared in this thread of travel being permitted without directly quoting the eTA were wrong - give the agent a golden ticket for defending Canadian borders

ii) The agent was incompetent/untrained/wrong and the dozens of other examples of successful travel were correct.

Either BA got it wrong on this occasion or multiple times in the past. Take your pick.

(Hint: The answer is that BA got it wrong this time).