Delta denies boarding based on fuzzy visa info
Mar 14, 2010, 9:46 am
#196
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: AGS
Programs: DL DM
Posts: 581
I’ve read all the postings on this thread with interest.
My conclusion, based on 20+ years in law enforcement, and which I think was alluded to by someone deep in some post a while back, is that OP said something, did something, was wearing something, carrying something or looked a certain way when he was in Gainesville that wasn’t included as part of this story. I’d love to hear the Gainesville agent’s version of this story. I think there’s more to it. But I’m a cynic…
Too many posters here have said they’ve run the DL “visa gauntlet” to Thailand without issue…and without a return ticket…for that alone to have stopped OP.
I see what DL is claiming now about having to have tickets or a visa, but I’m skeptical.
Just my thoughts.
My conclusion, based on 20+ years in law enforcement, and which I think was alluded to by someone deep in some post a while back, is that OP said something, did something, was wearing something, carrying something or looked a certain way when he was in Gainesville that wasn’t included as part of this story. I’d love to hear the Gainesville agent’s version of this story. I think there’s more to it. But I’m a cynic…
Too many posters here have said they’ve run the DL “visa gauntlet” to Thailand without issue…and without a return ticket…for that alone to have stopped OP.
I see what DL is claiming now about having to have tickets or a visa, but I’m skeptical.
Just my thoughts.
Mar 14, 2010, 10:28 am
#197
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,229
I’ve read all the postings on this thread with interest.
My conclusion, based on 20+ years in law enforcement, and which I think was alluded to by someone deep in some post a while back, is that OP said something, did something, was wearing something, carrying something or looked a certain way when he was in Gainesville that wasn’t included as part of this story. ....
My conclusion, based on 20+ years in law enforcement, and which I think was alluded to by someone deep in some post a while back, is that OP said something, did something, was wearing something, carrying something or looked a certain way when he was in Gainesville that wasn’t included as part of this story. ....
Mar 14, 2010, 10:49 am
#198
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: AGS
Programs: DL DM
Posts: 581
Mar 14, 2010, 10:53 am
#199
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,688
Do you knopw the difference between right, and legally right? The agent was an absolute moron, for about 10 different reasons,a nd misinformed the passenger. HOWEVER unless the OP has the incident recorded (and I am not going to get into the admissability of that) on audio or video, the fact remains that he has no chance of winning anything in court. He SHOULD have bought a ticket right there and then and had proof, even had the agent still denied him, Delta would have made it up as he would have been following the letter of the law (or timeatic) but as it stands, again, it is "he said, she said" and there is no solid proof to back up the OP in a court of law.
The OP can also testify that phone agents told him he must have a DL flight, which is a straight up lie. And again, unless the agent he spoke to shows up to testify, only the OP's story will be in evidence.
Mar 14, 2010, 11:35 am
#201
Join Date: Nov 2007
Programs: DL GM, WN AL/CP, UA Silver, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 1,483
Do you knopw the difference between right, and legally right? The agent was an absolute moron, for about 10 different reasons,a nd misinformed the passenger. HOWEVER unless the OP has the incident recorded (and I am not going to get into the admissability of that) on audio or video, the fact remains that he has no chance of winning anything in court. He SHOULD have bought a ticket right there and then and had proof, even had the agent still denied him, Delta would have made it up as he would have been following the letter of the law (or timeatic) but as it stands, again, it is "he said, she said" and there is no solid proof to back up the OP in a court of law.
Mar 14, 2010, 5:23 pm
#202
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 22,778
Mar 14, 2010, 5:38 pm
#203
Join Date: May 2002
Location: OAK
Programs: AS MVPG; WN A-List; Marriott Plat; IHG Plat; HH Diamond; all the rest
Posts: 650
Unless DL actually brings the original agent to the trial, it will be an "OP said something, DL said nothing." DL can bring the original agent's notes in the OP's PNR if it wants, but if the OP does a good job those won't be admissable without the original agent. The original agent would need to authenticate them and subject himself to cross-examination.
The OP can also testify that phone agents told him he must have a DL flight, which is a straight up lie. And again, unless the agent he spoke to shows up to testify, only the OP's story will be in evidence.
The OP can also testify that phone agents told him he must have a DL flight, which is a straight up lie. And again, unless the agent he spoke to shows up to testify, only the OP's story will be in evidence.
My only worry on the OP's behalf is that the contract of carriage, or some other policy document incorporated by it, has a "we can deny you boarding for any other reason we see fit" catch all. Or, that it compels arbitration.
Mar 14, 2010, 5:40 pm
#204
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SEA
Posts: 12,485
Beyond the front line, conclusions are not drawn based on "notes in the PNR." If this situation has been elevated to the point claimed, there must be something missing from the original story (as alluded to earlier).
Mar 14, 2010, 5:53 pm
#205
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 22,778
Unless DL actually brings the original agent to the trial, it will be an "OP said something, DL said nothing." DL can bring the original agent's notes in the OP's PNR if it wants, but if the OP does a good job those won't be admissable without the original agent. The original agent would need to authenticate them and subject himself to cross-examination.
The OP can also testify that phone agents told him he must have a DL flight, which is a straight up lie. And again, unless the agent he spoke to shows up to testify, only the OP's story will be in evidence.
The OP can also testify that phone agents told him he must have a DL flight, which is a straight up lie. And again, unless the agent he spoke to shows up to testify, only the OP's story will be in evidence.
Mar 14, 2010, 5:55 pm
#206
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 22,778
I've read several posts in this thread asserting that "the OP can't 'prove' anything"... etc. Thank you, someone else who knows and understands the rules of evidence.
My only worry on the OP's behalf is that the contract of carriage, or some other policy document incorporated by it, has a "we can deny you boarding for any other reason we see fit" catch all. Or, that it compels arbitration.
My only worry on the OP's behalf is that the contract of carriage, or some other policy document incorporated by it, has a "we can deny you boarding for any other reason we see fit" catch all. Or, that it compels arbitration.
Mar 14, 2010, 5:59 pm
#207
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Iowa...Delta Charter Diamond, now Gold
Posts: 2,066
Sorry, I my laptop battery is running low, so I couldn't read all 14 pages of posts ( I read first 3 and last 2 pages) but how does an e ticket prove you would be leaving within 30 days...
Mar 14, 2010, 6:07 pm
#208
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,688
Actually, I just looked up the visa requirements again and got the following:
Passport required.
- Passport and/or passport replacing documents must be valid
for at least 6 months upon arrival.
Visa required, except for A touristic stay of max. 30 days:
- for holders of normal passports, being nationals of the
U.S.A.(except passports issued in the Marshall Islands);
Additional Information:
- All passports must be in good condition.
- Those travelling to Thailand with a visa issued prior to
arrival, are permitted to travel on a one-way ticket.
- It is strongly recommended to hold documents for next
destination as passengers may be subject to random checks.
- Visitors over 12 years of age must hold sufficient funds to
cover their stay (at least THB 20,000.- or USD 640.- per
person/family).
- Passport and/or passport replacing documents must be valid
for at least 6 months upon arrival.
Visa required, except for A touristic stay of max. 30 days:
- for holders of normal passports, being nationals of the
U.S.A.(except passports issued in the Marshall Islands);
Additional Information:
- All passports must be in good condition.
- Those travelling to Thailand with a visa issued prior to
arrival, are permitted to travel on a one-way ticket.
- It is strongly recommended to hold documents for next
destination as passengers may be subject to random checks.
- Visitors over 12 years of age must hold sufficient funds to
cover their stay (at least THB 20,000.- or USD 640.- per
person/family).
Mar 14, 2010, 6:26 pm
#209
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 22,778
Neither does a ticket to Bangkok with less than 30 days stay. The ticket satisfies the letter of the law and Delta.
Mar 14, 2010, 8:07 pm
#210
Join Date: Nov 2007
Programs: DL GM, WN AL/CP, UA Silver, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 1,483
I've read several posts in this thread asserting that "the OP can't 'prove' anything"... etc. Thank you, someone else who knows and understands the rules of evidence.
My only worry on the OP's behalf is that the contract of carriage, or some other policy document incorporated by it, has a "we can deny you boarding for any other reason we see fit" catch all. Or, that it compels arbitration.
My only worry on the OP's behalf is that the contract of carriage, or some other policy document incorporated by it, has a "we can deny you boarding for any other reason we see fit" catch all. Or, that it compels arbitration.