Tobias-UK

I’m afraid, legally speaking, that is irrelevant. The Canadian Authorities did not authorise your travel and ergo you were prevented from boarding. An airline cannot override the unauthorised to board indicator. You did nothing wrong, you cannot be blamed but similarly the decision was outside the airline’s control. I know you do not want to hear that, but unfortunately that is the case. If you believe BA are lying to you then your only option is to commence legal proceedings, that will be an uphill battle and you are likely to end up further out of pocket and feel even more bitter.

orbitmic

Indeed, all information is always shared correctly and confidentially and the correct questions are always asked is an idiotic answer by an idiotic customer service agent.

however, as mentioned upthread, I personally think there was nothing to gain through insisting on the customer service route at this stage. They already gave you their answers and are not going to modify them. If you want different answers you’ll need to explore different routes. Alternatively you can let it go and move on. I can understand both choices but I think the customer service route will merely result in more aggravation.

Dambus

Perhaps you have access to more information that the OP (if so it would be helpful to share).

“Legally speaking” the CS responses from BA are inconsistent and confusing, specifically
- Denied entry vs authorization to travel
- Canadian Authorities vs Experts

Let’e assume (and I sure you are) that BA are not lying. If the agent’s logic and procedure on the OPs day of departure was as confused as the BAs considered CS response then there is a least the possibility that an avoidable mistake was made by BA.

You have inferred multiple times in this thread that the OP should give up as it is not worth the fight - I don’t think repeating this adds any value.

My suggestions to the OP would be
- Ask CIC to check his/her immigration record and confirm that there is no denied boarding record
- Once confirmed, reply to BA CS pointing out the inconsistency and ask for the contact details of the experts/Canadian authorities so that these can be shared with CIC for corrective action
- Ask BA for a full copy of his PNR including all agent notes

These are relatively low “discovery” efforts which may unearth a nugget.

Enigma368

TBH this whole reply just makes me much less sympathetic towards BA. It is the ultimate copy and paste "we could not care less". I also am VERY skeptical of the "Canadian authorities denied you entry" line, it sounds like the person writing the email picked up on you mentioning that BA said they had spoken to "Canadian authorities" and decided "Great, Ill use that as a way to brush off his complaint".

Speaking to someone at Canadian authorities who says "sorry I can't find an eTA for him but generally speaking he does need an eTA" does now equal "denying" someone entry.

I agree with others - push for hard facts on this one - ask BA to provide specific details as to who was spoken to so you can follow up and find out why you were denied. If it turns out that BA were told to not you fly by someone in actual authority in the Canadian Government based on all the facts, fair enough, but I am far from convinced yet that that happened.

LTN Phobia

That might be an indication that whatever conflict the system was experiencing had been sorted out by then. Sometimes, totally unintended consequences of coincidences can really stuff you up for a few hours if you happen to be in the midst of it, yet if you aren't, you wouldn't even notice anything is amiss.

Enigma368

Certainly that is what BA is saying. I am not as quick to buy this as you are. Not saying they are lying but they could be putting a lot of spin on what actually happened.

Denying a specific person entry to a country is in no way the same as someone advising: "he will likely be denied entry if he flies and does not a valid eTA". And if a specific "denial" did happen, I would want to know what facts were presented by BA that led to this denial.

The whole reply from BA, apart from being full of fake sympathy also reeks of someone who briefly looked at the case and then sent a vague reply to get rid of the OP. I would want to know a lot more if I was the OP.

Enigma368

Indeed. In fact if I was the OP, I would try to talk to someone in authority on the Canadian side to find out if I did or did not have a valid eTA at the time in question. I would then also ask for them to check for any record of denied entry or advice given as such.

If he had a valid eTA at the time in question (should be possible to find out), I think there is a reasonable possibility that BA are still at fault for this whole thing(especially after their CS reply), regardless of what they are saying.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

This is the bit that sticks out.

With such a detailed response from customer service, why not simply write down the couple of questions that were asked?

For all we know the check-in agents could have simply stated the facts as a passenger travelling with a work permit but no eTA: 'can they fly?'. To which the answer would have been 'no'.

The system rejecting the passenger for lack of an attached eTA makes more sense. But that seems to have been resolved by the time the OP attempted to gain entry the next day.

orbitmic

Yes, that's the difference between the job candidate who tells you "I am the best at my job, really, I'm telling you that I am" and the job candidate who lists the contracts she, the specific increase in benefits her unit made since she was appointed to lead it compared to the previous period, and the awards she received.

"Saying" that you are right always inspires far more suspicion than showing that you are.

710 77345

Time for quick and cheap data protection Subject Access Request, and if that doesn't have the info an online money claim.

Yllanes

Sorry if this question is stupid or has been answered before but, regardless of whether BA's decision to deny boarding was reasonable or not, didn't flamboyant1 forfeit any compensation when he accepted the alternative itinerary?

orbitmic

In my opinion of the spirit of the EC261 regulation, not unless it was specifically stated that this was accepted on the condition that compensation was forfeited.

Tobias-UK

Not even then, EC261 is a statutory right. The OP would argue in any claim for compensation that he involuntarily accepted the flight to BOS in an effort to mitigate the costs of getting to his destination and to ensure he arrived without any further delay.

Tobias-UK

And how would this help? I'm afraid that is irrelevant. At the time of check-in the airline were not given the 'authorised to travel' indicator for the passenger. An airline cannot override that and without it they are not allowed to board the passenger. BA called the Canadian Authorities to try to resolve but to no avail.

What else could BA have done? We are told the eTA is attached to the passport and ergo that is how the Canadians will confirm if there is an eTA or not. They pinged back to BA that there was no eTA and the passenger was 'unable to board'. If all this is correct, why should BA be liable?

As I see it, the Article 2 defence under EC261 is available to BA in all the circumstances posted by the OP.

Tobias-UK

We could say the same about the OP. If we are to take the OP at face value then we should also take what the airline said at face value.

I have no horse in this race, I offer a dispassionate view on the evidence we have been provided. At the end of the day, either BA is liable under EC261 or it isn't. On the evidence we have I suspect the OP would fail in his claim for compensation, it is up to him if he wishes to try but he needs to realise it will be an uphill battle and he may end up even more out of pocket and even more angry.