jal62

My sister in law just flew back home to Chile from the US and received a $4000 fine upon arriving for not having a covid test within the last 72hrs, plus she was forced to pay to quarantine in a hotel upon landing in Santiago.

She took the test in San Francisco within 72hrs of flying, but after the layover it was then 75hrs from the departure of her connecting flight since her test (because of the 3hr time zone difference from where she took the test in PST vs. where her connecting flight departed in EST).

American Airlines spent an hour verifying her paperwork before letting her board her flight, and they even let passengers onboard who had not yet received results from their tests. US Airlines are responsible for fines if they allow passengers to fly without a visa who are then turned back upon arrival. In this case, would they also be liable for the fine for allowing her to fly without a test that met requirements?

Thanks everyone for your advice and tips for how to deal with this... $4k is about 2months salary for a Chilean

MSPeconomist

I'd start by looking at the entry rules very carefully, in both English and Spanish. Is the rule within 72 hours of scheduled departure of the flight (segment) to Chile or is it phrased as departure from your origin or the first flight segment on your ticket/PNR (excluding stopovers)?

I'm confused about your reference to time zones. Taking the test at 3 pm PST would be 6 pm EST, so this would work in the passenger's favor (later tests are better). Could the official have misunderstood the time stamp on her test result?

13901

The rules on the Chile.travel website are as follows:

https://chile.travel/planviajarachile

So if the OP's siste took the test at t-72h from the departure time of her first flight, then had a connection... more than 72hrs would've elapsed since the test was made. The fine sounds harsh but the rule is there.

Boraxo

Wow. Expensive mistake. Those "instant" tests are starting to look reasonable in price.

pentiumvi

I'm not sure this scenario applies to your situation. The typical situation where an airline is liable for a fine is when a passenger is refused entry due to not meeting entry requirements. But since your sister-in-law was granted entry to the country, I think at that point it has nothing to do with the airline anymore.
You say she flew "home". I take it to mean that she's a Chilean citizen. Not sure what the laws is for Chile, but may be similar to US/CAN where a citizen may not be refused entry if presented at the border.

LAX_Esq

Unless we have any Chilean lawyers (or folks familiar with the Chilean legal system) on here, I doubt anyone can help very much. If this is truly 2 months of salary for the person, seems like she needs real help from someone who knows what s/he's talking about and this isn't the right forum for her. This is a serious legal matter, not a dispute with LATAM over not getting a lime in your beverage. Someone in Chile qualified to deal with this sort of thing should be consulted about how to fight this, appeal, negotiate the fine down, get out of this on a technicality, plead for mercy, etc.

nathansmith0311

This is insane. I feel so sorry that your sister will probably have little chance to get reimbursement. Most of the time, those organizations will avoid taking responsibility for this kind of case.

Spanish

This sounds most reasonable. They've already gone forward with the fine, so it's "tied up" in the legal system now.

Big-time bummer...

With so many members, surely we have a Chilean lawyer among us...?

jal62

Thanks everybody for your help! Support from this community is outstanding!
I'd love a connection to a Chilean lawyer or representative that could help!

chicagoflyer1976

How was she fine? Was someone at the airport with a credit card machine waiting for payment?

jal62

She received the fine at customs (I guess this would come from Chilean TSA). She did not have to pay on the spot. I'm not sure when it's due (or how long she has to contest) but think it's probably 30 days

Often1

If the website is the last word on the Chilean requirement, it seems clear that OP's relative violated the time limit. Whether the fine is appropriate and how it is imposed is a matter of local law.

Air carriers are not responsible for providing legal advice to passengers. The reason they check paperwork is to assure that they themselves won't be fined. Whatever carrier it is which carried the passenger from the layover point to SCL may well be separately fined, but that is another matter.

LAX_Esq

Airlines aren't responsible for providing legal advice to pax, but as a policy matter, one could argue that it may make sense for govt agencies to place the burden on airlines to get it right and to hold the airlines solely responsible if they don't get it right. Arguably, airlines are in a better position to understand and navigate the rules to ensure compliance, and should be incentivized to the maximum extent to get it right. And arguably, it's not good policy to impose punitive and financially crippling fines - that they may never be able to pay - on lowly citizens for innocent mistakes in the face of somewhat confusing rules. Obviously Chile disagreed, and thought fines of 2 months salary were appropriate policy.

Often1

The first part is certainly true. Pretty much worldwide. But, the fact remains that if the air carrier is in error, it pays a fine or suffers some other penalty. But, that does not make it liable to the passenger. AA may well wind up (or has already been) fined in this situation.

LAX_Esq

Agreed. Just saying that it's a policy issue whether the pax should also be held be liable in such situations, or whether the liability should solely rest with the airline.