Originally Posted by denizenxix

We didn't spend anything on new tickets to JNB; VS got on the phone with DL Atlanta and they managed to get us on VS601 LHR - JNB the following day. We called SAA and were able to change our tickets from JNB to HRE for about $250 and there were no issues encountered on our return trip.

The day of boarding denial, VS put us up at an airport hotel at LHR and gave us some shuttle bus and meal vouchers; we were on our way to HRE the following day. I'm grateful for the way VS stepped in and enabled us to continue our journey but isn't DL/VS willingness to rectify the situation in a way an admission of "guilt"? If we truly erred couldn't they simply have said you screwed up and our only responsibility now is to get you back to JFK?

Originally Posted by Productivity

This doesn't apply here however. If AF had flown the OP to JNB, as the OP wanted and then all flights to HRE were cancelled, AF would have faced large fines and responsibility for flying them back to CDG.

Originally Posted by Psyduck1

How did VS get involved? Did Delta initiate the communication or did you seek them out on your own? I'm surprised VS would do this without Delta asking them to, although I honestly don't know much about how the DL/AS partnership works. Either way that's awesome.

Originally Posted by denizenxix

Others have already pointed this out but you're wrong here; when you deboard the plane in JNB you either go right to enter the country via immigration or left if you're in transit. There are no monitors or airline agents in this area to inform you of flight status if you are connecting. If you go towards the transit area you'll first encounter an agent of the Dept. of Home Affairs who reviews your documentation before allowing you to continue onto the ticketing desks and security check area. I can't imagine a situation where upon reaching the ticketing desk and finding out all flights are canceled ZA officials would turn around and say to AF fly these passengers back to origin. The more likely scenario is SAA putting you up in the transit hotel which is just an elevator ride away.

Originally Posted by theddo

It will be difficult to get any compensation when the embassy claims they lacked proper documentation, even if that later on turns out to be wrong.

Originally Posted by Productivity

It's hard to claim a direct transit when neither ticket has anything to do with the other. Say your flight into JNB was delayed excessively, going either way, the subsequent carrier is under no obligation to do anything other than treat your ticket as a forfeit for no show. To me it is very hard to call it a direct transit under those circumstances, even if some airline staff did help you out.

Originally Posted by Productivity

I agree, you have to build an extreme scenario to get to being turned around, but if AF delivers you without entry papers in order and you have no other way out, you can be turned around. Is that likely over spending a night in the hotel? I think it isn't but it's possible and airlines deal with worst case scenarios, not best.

Originally Posted by Productivity

It's hard to claim a direct transit when neither ticket has anything to do with the other. Say your flight into JNB was delayed excessively, going either way, the subsequent carrier is under no obligation to do anything other than treat your ticket as a forfeit for no show. To me it is very hard to call it a direct transit under those circumstances, even if some airline staff did help you out.

Originally Posted by GUWonder

1. The proof of onward ticket does routinely provide airlines protection for the transport of passengers seeking entry and for the transport of passengers seeking transit.

2. Having an onward ticket does routinely change the facts on whether an entering passenger meets the entry requirements and on whether a transiting passenger meets the transit requirements.

As DL and AF reps should realize, entry requirements and transit requirements are not one and the same. And this is a case where the DL agent approach was different than the AF agent approach to a set of circumstances. Would South Africa prevent the onward transit of the OP once in South Africa? Improbable. And even if it did, would AF be fined for the transport of the OP's party under such circumstance? Improbable. And I've seen plenty of AF passengers denied entry (and sometimes transit) in countries which do have fines in the picture for some transport of disallowed passengers.

Originally Posted by kop84

I think many people are confusing the way things typically work with the way laws are written

Customarily airlines treat a separate ticket as proof enough for onward travel. I would find it difficult to believe that they are legally obligated to do so.

AF went by the letter rather than the spirit of the law. It's not the best customer service, but I doubt the EU courts would rule against them.

Originally Posted by sbrower

Isn't the solution simple? If the airline thinks there is a potential problem, and the passenger doesn't, then the passenger signs a credit card voucher for a reasonable amount ($10,000???) and if they passenger is denied entry then the airline gets to use the credit card for fines and return fees. A passenger who knows they are correct and won't have a problem will gladly sign the credit card authorization.

Originally Posted by kop84

I think many people are confusing the way things typically work with the way laws are written

Customarily airlines treat a separate ticket as proof enough for onward travel. I would find it difficult to believe that they are legally obligated to do so.

AF went by the letter rather than the spirit of the law. It's not the best customer service, but I doubt the EU courts would rule against them.

Originally Posted by denizenxix

The definitive authority here would not be be the Embassy but the Dept of Home Affairs and they say "No supporting documents will be required in the case of minors in direct transit at an International Airport."