IAN-UK

I'm wondering how BA might react to, say, an Egyptian rocking up to check-in at CAI with a ticket to London, no visa, but swears on all that's holy to use the booked return to Egypt only hours after arriving.

A different scenario: our OP manages to get to DOH/HIA. He's taken ill and even under current restrictions would likely get a visa waiver to be taken to hospital. But immigration notes he is not covered by the recognised definition of a transit passenger.......QR has a problem. I'm guessing an aversion to potential situations of that nature is what makes the airline nervous about accepting connections on separate tickets, or B2B passengers, where those passengers do not have visa-free of VoA status.

Dave Noble

Why? the exception to a rule for a visa for transit does state that it is for transit to a THIRD country; UK (1st) and Doha (2nd) - there is no 3rd country , so cannot see that the passenger was eligible to travel and not something that comes down to discretion

muscat

This works until it doesn’t, and then you are going to face difficulties. A friend was refused re-entry at the UAE border, drove back to the Omani side, and was refused entry there as he hadn’t entered another country since leaving Oman 30 minutes earlier. We all thought this was funny, he did not relish living the rest of his life in a halfmile wide strip of land. The Omanis eventually relented to allow him back in on condition that he was driven all the way back to Muscat, where he then flew to Abu Dhabi. As for those who did their visa run at the wrong time on what used to be the return flight to Kish Island....
The moral is, that in the Middle East, you are never going to win an argument with anyone in uniform, even if you know the law is on your side. (Actually, you can probably same the same about many other countries worldwide)

Prospero

I see this scenario is covered by BA's General Conditions of Carriage (Clause 7a16) which is sufficient to raise a rad flag to anyone endeavouring to undertake such a trip



It clearly is a thing since other airline's COC make provision for it. I am not trying to be argumentative, I am simply curious having noted that QR's COC does not cite any clauses to justify refusal of travel in Howard Long's situation

I think we can agree the scenario presented to us by Howard Long is not categorised as a transfer or transit.

percysmith

BA carries anyone transiting thru the UK (excepting those who need to meet an explicit UK transit visa requirement) with a

ringingup

Any news from the supplier? I’m curious now

Sorry if I missed the update!

Dave Noble

In which case you must surely agree that the person was not eligible to travel since the person would neither be eligible for TWOV nor eligible for admission to Qatar , given the details from timatic

IAMORGAN

Very interesting. I agree with the general consensus that QR would win this as I think when you purchase a ticket to Doha you are representing that you wish to be carried to Doha where he was inadmissible. This is self-evident as one needs to supply advance passenger information, which presumably is transmitted to the country of destination in advance. I don’t know anything about spooks but I get the sense they tend to know in advance who they’re looking for. IE the whole system is set up on the premise that there has to be a destination, which can’t be your point of origin.

But I also sympathise as it seems like a bit of a silly / illogical result.

That said, I notice Article 5.1 (my emphasis)

So the fare is for carriage to Hamad International Airport not to Doha per se. Obviously that has a landside and an airside section - so Mr Long never represented he wished to enter Qatar. The airport is the destination. It also begs the question if the answer would have been different if flying Heathrow-Doha-Gatwick.

There’s also the contractual provision quoted below at Article 7 about presenting yourself for check in (“at our check in location”). At Doha Hamad Airport the check in location is landside, so in order to comply, one has to be documented to pass through arrival immigration or the customer cannot comply with Article 7.

I can see counter arguments that:
(a) the transfer desk is also a check in location at Hamad International Airport, and no documents are needed to go there
(b) custom & practice is that HIA allows all customers with an onward reservation, whether to a third country or not, to use this facility
(c) Qatar Airways also has another check in location, which is qatarairways.com or via one of its mobile apps, which Mr Long could have used without passing through immigration. It also has a check in location at London Heathrow, which would have been able to issue him with a BP for his Doha to London flight, without being any immigration formalities!

There’s also the puzzling thing that had Mr Long tried to enter Qatar and been refused, there would presumably have been no cost to QR as Mr Long had a ticket back to London and he was admissible in the UK - so, what’s the problem? To those who say ah but he could have hung around and missed that flight before presenting at the border, well, yes, but if he had been flying on to Muscat he could have done that too. Equally his LHR-DOH could have been delayed or diverted resulting in him missing his return and being inadmissible.

I suppose QR would say their transit facility could be closed down or should not be used by ‘arriving’ customers, and Mr Long had a contractual obligation to present if QR required it at their nominated check in location which for a passenger commencing their journey to London would be landside check in.

They might also say what if they had cancelled the return flight.

Finally, the State of Qatar only permits Mr Long to transit. So I guess it also is relevant what the state regards as transit - if you take somewhere like China - you can’t use the Transit Without Visa exemption to visit China for a short break from the UK, you do have to be passing through to a ‘third country’ - so I expect it comes back to how Qatar the state analyses the situation. I actually doubt from a purposive point of view they care because the reason for the rule is to prevent C-19 from spreading into Qatar and, had he been allowed to travel to Doha, he would have been able, in practice, to make the ‘transfer’ without a problem.

Not sure where that takes anybody but an interesting debate!

Prospero

I overlooked Article 5.1 - its a useful point of reference.

The reason I introduced the Conditions of Carriage into the discussion is because it frames out the contractual obligations for both the customer and provider, and if Howard Long can demonstrate that he complied with the CoC, then it adds considerable weight to his compliant

Dave Noble

Article 14 of the T&Cs states

The visa requirements states tha TWOV is only permitted when continuing onward to a 3rd country
admission to Qatar would be prohibited without being a Qatar resident

The OP was not travelling to a 3rd country and also would be ineligible to enter Qatar - the CoC covers refusal to allow travel if the passenger does not have the correct documentation

If the OP had, for example, been travelling to a different country ( e.g. UK-Qatar-France) then the CoC would seem to be in the OP's favour, bur travelling UK-Qatar-UK, the CoC seesms to quite clearly allow QR to refuse travel due to the ineligibilty of the passenger to enter or transit Qatar

I don't see how it would be different - Gatwick is still in the same country as Heathrow and so there wouldn't be a transit to a 3rd country

If it is to reduce the risk of spread of the coronavirus, then restricting travel to those passing through to a 3rd country rather than just heading back where they came, seems to make a lot of sense anyway

all of this seems to be a question for another forum - QR refusing to allow travel due to travel documentation, seems to be something for a Qatar forum

Prospero

If you try to see this through Howard Long’s eyes, the entry and exit airports were Heathrow and Heathrow. There was no intention to enter Qatar. So as far as the CoC is concerned, his travel plans did adhere to the requirement set out in Article 14.

Also as we agreed there was no transit or transfer involved, why get bogged down with TWOVs etc.

My point is where a customer has complied with the CoC yet was denied boarding because of a decision taken by the carrier based on opaque policy, is it not reasonable to expect that the customer is not treated punitively as a result of that decision? This question could be directed to either QR or the Executive Club.

bafan

Yes. Exactly. To my mind this would entirely cover the situation.

Dave Noble

No he didn't - he did not have a visa and was ineligible to transit without visa since he was not in transit to a 3rd country - the EXCEPTION to requiring a visa is to be in transit ti a 3rd country. He did not have a visa that allowed passing through or arriving into Qatar

You might as well argue that someone turning up without a passport and is denied boarding is being unfairly treated since you dont need a passport to travel from UK to UK


By your own argument, you are stating that he didn't have required documentation - if arguing that he was not in transit to a 3rd country, then he was not eligible to go to Qatar

Prospero

No. I am simply saying QR’s own CoC allows for the possibility of a UK passport holder flying LHR-DOH then back to LHR without any obligation to enter Qatar. That’s all.

Dave Noble

But not if the person does not have the documentation to permit them to arrive in Qatar - which is catered for in the CoC
The person was not eligible to either transit at or clear immigration in Doha based on the required documetation as listed by Qatar in Timatic

The person has arrived in Qatar if they land in Doha and needs to be eligible to do so - whether the person clears immigration does not take away from the fact that they have arrived into Qatar

The passenger is responsible for ensuring that he or she has the required documents to be permitted to travel; the OP did not have them and was correctly refused travel in accordance with the CoC