CX kicked me off

Old Jun 4, 2018, 3:09 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 8
Angry CX kicked me off

I bought a round-trip ticket from South Korea to Hong Kong.

Flying from Korea to Hong Kong was all good, I had a nice holiday. Before 48 hours going back to Korea, I selected my seat, checked-in online and I got issued a boarding pass.

On the way back in the airport, I went through security and immigration, everything is great, and when I was about the board the flight, they asked me to show an onward travel proof of Korea. I told them I'm going to book that in Korea. They told me without proof of onward travel, I will not be able to board the flight. I told them this never happened with other airlines before, what's the reason behind it? They told me that if I go on a one-way ticket, I might be denied entering Korea, and they will be fined.

I called the Korean immigration law consultant, and I also recorded the voice conversation. The Korean immigration consultant confirmed it that it's not a requirement to have a round-trip ticket entering Korea. Also I am Visa-free for 90 days. She mentioned, that regardless you have a one-way ticket or a round-trip ticket, you could get denied in both cases, but not because of the nature of your ticket (one-way or round-trip/onward). This contradicts Cathay Pacific's explanation why I got refused.

I asked them for an official statement, show me the written regulation/law whatever for the reason I got denied. They printed out a section from TIMATIC-3 system where they showed me this part:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
WARNING:
- VISITORS NOT HOLDING RETURN/ONWARD TICKETS > TIRULES/R38 COULD BE REFUSED

Here is the TIRULES/R38 from the official website

R38) Ticket
......

Immigration authorities may request visitors and transit

passengers to prove that they will depart from the country
within the prescribed period, by showing a return or onward
ticket to their next international destination.

Unless stated otherwise, return/onward ticket is defined as:

a. International airline ticket (i.e. any types of airline

tickets, reservation confirmation, booking code etc.); or

b. Evidence of departing from the country by other means of

transportation (e.g. confirmation of joining a cruise, train,

bus or ferry tickets, proof of departing by private boat or

plane, etc).
I booked a cheap ticket going outside of Korea, showed them, and they put me on a flight 9 hours later than my original flight. I asked them for compensation, but they said I am not entitled for anything

I understand their point of view, they can save money if their customers have round-trip/onward ticket because it can increase the chance of entering the country. But on the other hand, from the Korean immigration side, it's not a requirement. Can they enforce their customers to buy the round-trip ticket as they did it with me? Can they just f@ck people over so easily and enforce them to buy a round-trip as they did with me? Who should I contact about this case? I am very upset
Carfield and Ursa81 like this.
rptlee is offline  
Old Jun 4, 2018, 3:22 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Programs: British Airways Gold
Posts: 2,635
Normal requirement to have an onward ticket
ajeleonard is offline  
Old Jun 4, 2018, 3:27 pm
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: MEL CHC
Posts: 20,820
they asked me to show an onward travel proof of Korea.
OP seems to be mixing onward travel and return ticket


Originally Posted by ajeleonard
Normal requirement to have an onward ticket
Very common with many countries
Mwenenzi is offline  
Old Jun 4, 2018, 3:31 pm
  #4  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Non-top tier Asia Miles member
Posts: 19,564
They can enforce.

It is SOP for CX to enforce rules they see in Timatic that local immigration officials have waived.

I have booked cancellable inbound tickets while redeeming outbound tickets on CX just to make sure a tightass ground agent cannot screw me over on the no return ticket rule.

There is one British Emergency Passport to South Africa case and one specific CoC on this, I'll post them after I get on my ride.

Last edited by percysmith; Jun 4, 2018 at 5:40 pm
percysmith is offline  
Old Jun 4, 2018, 3:54 pm
  #5  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by percysmith
They can enforce

it is SOP for CX to enforce rules they see in Timatic that local immigration officials have waived.

i have booked cancellable inbound tickets while redeeming outbound tickets on CX just to make sure a tightass ground agent cannot screw me over on the no return ticket rule.

There is one British Emergency Passport to South Africa case and one specific CoC on this, I'll post them after I get on my ride.
I want to highlight one part I read from the TIMATIC system

Timatic is the database containing cross border passenger documentation requirements. Timatic stands for Travel Information Manual Automatic and is used by airport ground staff to determine whether a passenger can be carried, as well as by airlines and travel agents to provide this information to travellers at the time of booking. This is critical for airlines due to both the fines levied by immigration authorities every time a passenger is carried who does not have the correct travel documentation, as well as the airline's cost to return the incorrectly-boarded passenger to airport from which the passenger departed.
I did have all the correct travel documentation required by the Korean immigration authorities. (Return/On-ward ticket is not a documentation that is required).
Also it is only a WARNING message on TIMATIC for the airline. If they don't take the risk, they should compensate their passengers, isn't it?
rptlee is offline  
Old Jun 4, 2018, 4:09 pm
  #6  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Non-top tier Asia Miles member
Posts: 19,564
South Africa on British Emergency Passport case: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/cath...f-mistake.html. Cathay denied boarding despite South Africa consul in HK confirming OP is cleared to enter Republic of South Africa.
percysmith is offline  
Old Jun 4, 2018, 4:11 pm
  #7  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Non-top tier Asia Miles member
Posts: 19,564
CX CoC:

ARTICLE 14: ADMINISTRATIVE FORMALITIES

14.2 TRAVEL DOCUMENTS

Prior to travel, you must present to us all exit, entry, health and other documents including passports and visas required by laws, regulations, orders, demands or requirements of the countries concerned. If we ask you must allow us to take and retain copies and deposit your passport or equivalent travel document with a member of the crew of the aircraft for safe custody until the end of the flight. We reserve the right to refuse carriage if you have not complied with these requirements, or your travel documents do not appear to be in order.

Last edited by percysmith; Jun 4, 2018 at 5:47 pm
percysmith is offline  
Old Jun 4, 2018, 4:14 pm
  #8  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Non-top tier Asia Miles member
Posts: 19,564
My Timatic interface doesn't have the word Warning, making it a straight requirement.
percysmith is offline  
Old Jun 4, 2018, 4:17 pm
  #9  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
Let's back up a little bit.

OP - Would you enlighten us how exactly you could depart from Korea? In other words, what exactly did you do before leaving for Hong Kong?
garykung is offline  
Old Jun 4, 2018, 4:18 pm
  #10  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 8
Please check it again, the word Warning is there. By the way isn't the purpose of the TIMATIC to be in compliance with the immigration laws of the destination country?
Please also check the wording, how they use "COULD BE REFUSED" and not WILL BE REFUSED. That is why it is a warning message and not a requirement.

I knew already that it is not a requirement to have an onward/return ticket for South Korea (although it is requirement in many other countries)
That's why I called the law consultant of the immigration service, she confirmed it that it is not a requirement.
rptlee is offline  
Old Jun 4, 2018, 4:19 pm
  #11  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Non-top tier Asia Miles member
Posts: 19,564
"WARNING: VISITORS NOT HOLDING RETURN/ONWARD TICKETS > TIRULES/R38 COULD BE REFUSED"

Even going with what CX was reading rather than my readout from EF, I don't think you'll find many people here who'd agree Timatic "Warning" labels are merely recommendations.
percysmith is offline  
Old Jun 4, 2018, 4:22 pm
  #12  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Non-top tier Asia Miles member
Posts: 19,564
Oh btw as a tiebreaker, CX may send a telex to the duty South Korean immigration office at Incheon that day.

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/asia...l#post28935228
[code]https://www.facebook.com/cathaypacificHK/posts/1195250987285269


If the immigration authority affirmatively replies to CX's telex request, you may board.

Whatever advice *you* prepare in advance - consultant, consul, foreign ministry - CX is entitled to and will habitually ignore.
barracuda93 likes this.

Last edited by percysmith; Jun 4, 2018 at 4:46 pm
percysmith is offline  
Old Jun 4, 2018, 4:24 pm
  #13  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by garykung
Let's back up a little bit.

OP - Would you enlighten us how exactly you could depart from Korea? In other words, what exactly did you do before leaving for Hong Kong?
I booked a return ticket from South Korea to Hong Kong. I checked-in, got my boarding pass, went to the airport and left for Hong Kong. Nothing special, I've been on and off South Korea for nearly 3 years. Never had an issue with one-way tickets. Even South Korean airlines never complained about going to Korea on a one way ticket.
Ursa81 likes this.
rptlee is offline  
Old Jun 4, 2018, 4:33 pm
  #14  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Non-top tier Asia Miles member
Posts: 19,564
Originally Posted by garykung
Let's back up a little bit.

OP - Would you enlighten us how exactly you could depart from Korea? In other words, what exactly did you do before leaving for Hong Kong?
I think OP's gripe is that CX is enforcing something from Timatic that he knows from experience to be untrue.

While we know CX GAs are idiotic to enforce those requirements, unfortunately we know they will and there is very little we can do to them.

OP can write to South Korea's foreign ministry and request they update IATA; but in the meantime, OP should expect CX to enforce this rule.

With respect, I don't believe CX to be alone in doing this. Korean airlines might know the actual law and let OP through, but don't expect every foreign airline to do so.
michaelxv likes this.
percysmith is offline  
Old Jun 4, 2018, 5:05 pm
  #15  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,265
CX agents are not lawyers and CX is not in the business of taking immigration risks. The entire purpose of TIMATIC is to put all relevant information in one place, train staff to use the database and be done with it. Staff are not there to make decisions, to hold up boarding or to consult third-party consultants, documents and the like.

If there is a "warning" or any suggestion that one may be denied entry, the cautious carrier and its staff will deny boarding. That is far from unique to CX.

Indeed air carrier tend to be conservative than immigration authorities on arrival. But, that is besides the point.

OP was responsible for checking all of this, learning that he could be denied entry and acting accordingly.
Often1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.