Productivity

AF most likely looked at Timatic, plugging in exactly what they had on the ticket which they had, taking no notice of the onward ticket. Timatic in that case will say you need birth certificates.

AF is within it's rights to ignore the onward ticket, as it's nothing to do with them (and hypothetically, you could say cancel it after showing it to AF, in order to get it refunded and AF would have no recourse).

davetravels

I hate to be accused of perpetuating beating the dead horse - but - - -

Even if it was all on one ticket, they could just ignore the JNB/HRE segment - same exact thing. But, what would that get them? They'd be stuck in transit without the birth certificates?

Productivity

But that would be on them. AF would have transported them in good faith, knowing they had everything in order, on AF/DL tickets.

I don't think we're really going anywhere here, I don't think AF will give any ground and I don't think it's reasonable to expect them too. Build your own connection in a country where you're missing documents is risky, OP got burnt.

Others feel differently, that AF was unreasonable. That's your choice, but unless OP is willing to fight this in a court, which I think based on the letter of the law/CoC, they would most likely lose, it is highly recommended that if transiting South Africa on two separate tickets you bring all the documents you require.

flyerCO

In that case legally speaking the passengers would be in direct transit. Thus all AF needs to comply with are requirements for a direct transit passenger. If the passenger skips it or fate otherwise intervenes, AF is off the hook. However on separate tickets if the passenger skips the HRE or fate otherwise intervenes, AF is on the hook.

Often1

For goodness sakes, Davetravels posed the exact factual situation as related by OP to the Embassy here in Washington and received a definitive response to the effect that the "full birth certificates are required." An additional form, perhaps useless but harmless, is also attached.

All that EC 261/2004 required is that AF have a reasonable grounds to deny. If even staff at the country's Embassy believes that a person in OP's circumstance requires the children's birth certificates it is hard to believe that AF is unreasonable in requiring them especially when the Embassy notes that the air carrier may deny boarding.

As to TIMATIC, It is worth noting that if one plugs JNB in as the destination, the birth certificate requirement appears. If one plugs in HRE with a transit at CDG and JNB, no such requirement appears for JNB.

As to signing a blank CC slip, that really is a fairly useless exercise these days as it merely transfers the issue to a CC dispute chargeback mechanism where no air carrier would want the issue and consider that in this case, I have no idea of OP's financial circumstances, but he would be tying up and putting at risk $10K + 4 YY one-way tickets JNB-JFK, likely around $30,000 total.

TheMadBrewer

Folks, I think the last few pages of this thread boils down to is: is a separate ticket a "transit" or the end of one journey and the start of another.

Back and forth arguments aren't going to change anybody's mind and may lead to the thread being closed and we won't hear AF's response to the OP's request (assuming they share with us)

davetravels

So, here's the thing. Here's the OP's follow up post regarding what happened after all . . . .

So, the next day, the OP's family STILL had no birth certificates - and STILL had 2 separate tickets, but now on Virgin & SAA, instead of AF & SAA - and transited JNB without a hitch!

GUWonder

And on separate tickets, they transited via South Africa twice in a row without any birth certificate. So out of the at least four carriers involved in the trip to transit South Africa using separately booked tickets, only AF gave the OP a hassle over a South African entry requirement that is not a South African transit requirement.

LondonElite

Just because one carrier made a (in many eyes) legitimate fuss and others didn't, does not lead to the conclusion that (i) the others were 'right' if such an absolute exists, or (ii) that the OP has a snowball's chance of IDB compensation (which is how this whole thing got started.)

ryanfinger

I always travel with my child's birth certificate - no matter where I go abroad. As stated earlier, passports don't show relationship. Even if you didn't need this documentation to transit there could be a whole host of other reasons why having this could be helpful or even necessary. I don't know what the downside would be in carrying the birth certificate (maybe someone can come up with some). We have an extra copy of our child's certificate just for this reason.

Put it another way... You don't need to show ID anymore to enter a SkyClub. If an agent asks to see your ID do you smile and provide it or argue that this level of documentation isn't needed (even though you have a valid ID to show them)? I guess it just depends on which battles you want to fight. When it comes to my kid - I just want to get from A to B as easily as possible while keeping him from raging havoc on everyone in D1.

Carry a birth certificate and this doesn't happen. My 2 cents...

kop84

That's a better way of saying what I tried to say a while back. It's a couple of sheets of paper, fold them up and put them in one of the zipper pockets in your bag. It's not like they're a large print, leather bound copy of "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire."

Should you need them, no, but there is very little downside to having them.

miraclebear2003

I think that calls for a standing ovation. Please join me in this exercise.

dmbolp

I exceed the speed limit every single day of the year, have only been pulled over once in the past 20 years. That one cop was right.

And, How can I take advantage of the police not pulling me over???@:-)

GUWonder

The analogy is extraordinarily flawed. You admit a violation of a rule, and there is a legal consequence for being caught violating the rule. How does that analogy apply to the OP's trip?

kop84

Ok well how about a restaurant who's menu says that there are no free refills on pop (soda for non MN people). Say I've eaten there a dozen times and have never been charged for a refill. Then the 13th time I go, I AM charged for a refill as is the letter of the law.

The restaurant is within it's rights to do that but it's not good customer service as they've set an expectation with past performance.

That is how I feel about this...While the expectation had been set over many times and airlines that a second stand alone ticket would satisfy the onward travel requirement, by the strictest letter of the law AF was only transporting them to JNB. I don't care if they had onward tickets on Virgin Galactic to go to the moon.

So AF screwed up in a customer service fashion, not in a legal fashion.
OP may get some vouchers or miles out of it, but the claiming compensation in court is going to be a non-starter.