Delta denies boarding based on fuzzy visa info
Mar 15, 2010, 1:35 am
#211
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: KKC/TPA
Programs: All statuses lapsed; now I'm just a free-agent, and loving it!
Posts: 1,245
Two points:
1. It might not even get to small claims court, especially if it was a non-local place for Delta (like in Gainseville FL.) Once the date is set and they know you're serious, they'd probably offer to settle out of court. Cheaper than hiring/sending an attorney to spend time on this case.
2. If it did go to court, wouldn't this be a great one to see played out on "Judge Judy"?
1. It might not even get to small claims court, especially if it was a non-local place for Delta (like in Gainseville FL.) Once the date is set and they know you're serious, they'd probably offer to settle out of court. Cheaper than hiring/sending an attorney to spend time on this case.
2. If it did go to court, wouldn't this be a great one to see played out on "Judge Judy"?
Mar 16, 2010, 9:17 am
#214
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5
A (final) update
I know some people are getting tired of this thread. I understand, we're tired too. But to answer a few questions and give a (likely final) update:
An "Executive Assistant" from Delta gave the final word from the company, which is this:
"While it is in the best interests
of all involved, the airlines and most importantly our passengers, the
ultimate responsibility for securing proper documents lies with each
passenger. If passengers have questions regarding the applicable
documents required, as noted on our website, they can consult the consul
ahead of time. If a policy differs, passengers can bring a notice
regarding the update or exception to the IATA requirements."
"With regret, I must respectfully deny your request and advise that we will
not be responding to this matter again."
Again, they are NOT arguing over the onward ticket issue. They continue to claim that even with proof of onward travel, they were still correct to deny boarding. So basically Delta is saying it was the passenger's responsibility to bring a note from the Thai embassy to allow boarding.
There is really nothing more to it than this. No hidden agenda or hidden information. The two travelers, as you may have guessed, were college-aged backpackers. So yes - that may have led to less respect at the check-in counter than with older travelers. But they are also full American citizens with valid passports and they were following the law.
My brother is on his vacation for a couple more weeks, so it will be his decision when he gets back whether to file in small-claims court. I doubt that will happen - it's easier just to move on. Besides, without the etkt of onward travel it's hard to say how a judge will look at the case.
My brother made a mistake by not showing up to the airport with a booked ticket for onward travel, but Delta continues to insist that it wouldn't matter anyway. So that's probably the final word. Delta insists it has the right to deny boarding based on its own reading of Timatic, foreign laws be damned.
An "Executive Assistant" from Delta gave the final word from the company, which is this:
"While it is in the best interests
of all involved, the airlines and most importantly our passengers, the
ultimate responsibility for securing proper documents lies with each
passenger. If passengers have questions regarding the applicable
documents required, as noted on our website, they can consult the consul
ahead of time. If a policy differs, passengers can bring a notice
regarding the update or exception to the IATA requirements."
"With regret, I must respectfully deny your request and advise that we will
not be responding to this matter again."
Again, they are NOT arguing over the onward ticket issue. They continue to claim that even with proof of onward travel, they were still correct to deny boarding. So basically Delta is saying it was the passenger's responsibility to bring a note from the Thai embassy to allow boarding.
There is really nothing more to it than this. No hidden agenda or hidden information. The two travelers, as you may have guessed, were college-aged backpackers. So yes - that may have led to less respect at the check-in counter than with older travelers. But they are also full American citizens with valid passports and they were following the law.
My brother is on his vacation for a couple more weeks, so it will be his decision when he gets back whether to file in small-claims court. I doubt that will happen - it's easier just to move on. Besides, without the etkt of onward travel it's hard to say how a judge will look at the case.
My brother made a mistake by not showing up to the airport with a booked ticket for onward travel, but Delta continues to insist that it wouldn't matter anyway. So that's probably the final word. Delta insists it has the right to deny boarding based on its own reading of Timatic, foreign laws be damned.
Mar 16, 2010, 9:33 am
#215
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 15,351
No what they are sayng is that he did not have the proper documents, which he did not. Ultimately, according to the letter of the law (or the letter of IATA posting Thai regs) no document exists then or now to say otherwise. What you and many others just do not get is that what the agent said at the time while stupid, ultimately means nothing. Had your brother had an e-ticket out of Thailand on any carrier that he could show, he may have been denied boarding by that agent on that day, however trust me, the response you would be getting now from corporate would have been FAR different.
Mar 16, 2010, 9:42 am
#216
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
No what they are sayng is that he did not have the proper documents, which he did not. Ultimately, according to the letter of the law (or the letter of IATA posting Thai regs) no document exists then or now to say otherwise. What you and many others just do not get is that what the agent said at the time while stupid, ultimately means nothing. Had your brother had an e-ticket out of Thailand on any carrier that he could show, he may have been denied boarding by that agent on that day, however trust me, the response you would be getting now from corporate would have been FAR different.
Mar 16, 2010, 9:50 am
#217
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHL
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 953
It's likely the OP and the agent were in a heated argument and the agent wasn't willing to cut him some slack.
Unprofessionalism by the agent aside, "buying a ticket" on ones cell phone really doesn't qualify as "proper documents". You'd have to go to a printer and print out the confirmation etc. before you'd meet that standard. Not something you are going to easily do at the airport (yes there are lounges and things, but the agent is responsible for verifying those docs).
Also, that buying a ticket online sometimes doesn't immediately produce an eTicket #, so that doesn't also immediately qualify.
If the OP bought the external trip ticket & printed the receipt (like he should've done) and carried that with him to the airport, then he'd have a much stronger case against DL if they rejected him (possibly wouldn't have encountered problems to begin with).
Note: Not apologizing for DL's behavior. Just suggesting that I can see why the agent would've said that a cell-phone purchased ticket was insufficient. Based on the way I understand the international travel rules, it would be insufficient without the printed copy & eTicket confirmation. I only travel about once/twice a year internationally (Western Europe) and I always print out my hotel and ticket stuff for customs. I can't remember the last time they actually looked at it though.
Last edited by BobRoss; Mar 16, 2010 at 10:00 am