carnarvon

This is a common mistake. Many people mistakenly refer to passport control as customs.

warakorn

From a German legal point of view the passenger was not deported from Germany.
Deportation = "Abschiebung"
The passenger was refused entry into the Schengen room.
Refused entry = "Zurückweisung"

A deportation would usually carry a heavy penalty (e.g. multiple-year block on entering Schengen).

No!

Hence, you are talking about a deportation.
The affected person has to pay for the return ticket. If the German government pays for the ticket/transportation, the person has to pay this money back - otherwise, the block won't be released at any point.

In practical terms after the passenger was denied entry into Schengen, the German immigration officer (Bundespolizei) will either send the passenger to the transit desk (which is in the Non-Schengen area) or calls a representative of the airline in. It is more likely the passenger was just redirected to the transit desk by the Bundespolizei. Here, the handling ticket agent would rebook the ticket to get the passenger back to the US. Naturally, ticket rules/penalties have to be observed. The passenger then can stay overnight in the Non-Schengen area. The passenger may opt to refuse paying the rebooking fee. However, this would worsen the situation for her. The Bundespolizei needs to escalate that case - the chances that the Bundespolizei will issue a government-imposed penalty on the passenger and putting her data into the Schengen Information System is increasing.
​​​​​​​Why the trouble?

jpschoubert

Again - excuses as this is second hand. Yes she would have had 90+ days validity on her passport when she was in Holland. So yes, that would have contradicted the 6-month info. From what I know she had 76 days from the departure date out of FRA.

Condor did pay for the daughter's flight back 100% but the mom had the change fee since she was not in violation. I guess the moral of the story is that the airline's system at time of res or for the matter check-in failed to flag the violation.

LondonElite

Well, not really. The moral of the story is that the passengers should have checked their immigration/passport details. Ultimately it is down to the traveller to ensure that they comply with the requirements that will/should be checked at check-in/arrival. Even if the airline makes the mistake of letting you board (and thus sent home from the destination, eating the return flight) fault ultimately lies with the person in question. I wish airlines would highlight in bold flashy writing the requirements for passport/visa validity on their website at booking.

jpschoubert

I agree without a doubt its the fault and responsibility of the passager. However what really bugs me, is that in this day and age when we have all the data, there is absolutely no reason the flags could not have gone up and given them time to do something about it. I may not have all the facts, so not sure how this one fell through the 'res' and 'airport check' cracks. I just booked Europe, I may just modify my passport expiration date on my AA res and see what happens... BTW ATL/DTW/CVG to CDG is about $300 right now on AA.

Thank you all for your insight

LondonElite

I don't disagree with you, hence my last sentence. The problem is that, what you are suggesting is extremely complex. In order to have even a basic hope of being functional, the reservation system would have to take account of dozens of data points, including nationality, residency, residency permits held, country travelling from, through, to, validity dates, visas, visa requirements, duration of stay, as well as a whole slew of minor things. A nightmare where it's easier just to leave it to the passenger to figure out.

ISTFlyer

In overall,

Condor has a fault that their system hasn't verified that the passengers didn't have the necessary travel documents.
I didn't get an answer from the OP for this question;

So, I would assume that the check-in agent has manually entered the passport information to the system.

However, this does not mean that the passenger is able to fly because of the fault of the airline's web system or the check-in agents fault. It's always the responsibility of the passenger to have the valid travel documents and it's the airline's job to verify if they have the necessary documents for their travel.

JamesKidd

I think this makes perfect sense. As you can see the daughter was in violation of immigration rules. Condor, for their mistake, had to transport the passenger back at their cost and the German authorities may have also fined them. So they've had to pay up for their error.

The mum could have stayed back and enjoyed the holidays if she wanted too, but chose to go back with her daughter and hence the change fee.

If you take a step back and see - everyone has had to pay up.
​

ft101

You just described Timatic, which is reportedly what the airlines use. It may have just been an error in reading/interpreting the info displayed but no matter, the onus is still on the passenger as highlighted here.

LondonElite

MSPeconomist

malmostoso

IATA offers such service for free and it's the first result when I Google timatic.

I agree that the main hurdle is for any passenger to know that such a thing as "timatic" exists.

LondonElite

Often1

The question of whether the child was properly denied entry into Schengen at FRA is speculation because OP lacks the details (and says so). But, that is really irrelevant to the question at hand.

1. It is always 100% the passenger's responsibility to have determined what documents are required and to have those in hand. If one does not know this information and does not know how to find it, one has to ask someone who does know. That is not different than most situations people confront in their every day lives.

2. Condor is subject to penalties for having transported a passenger and is responsible for returning her to her origin. However, Condor may recover those from the passenger, but it rarely occurs. In the moment, it is Condor's cost to bear.

3. There is little impetus to create a mechanism to fully automate TIMATIC because there are millions of permutations for most situations. It is far simpler to simply complete the interface regarding nationality, residency, stopovers, and the like and to read the output. Condor either did not bother or failed. That may cost Condor a good deal of money. But, that does not alleviate the burden on the passenger (or adult guardian).

In any event, given the ease of US passport renewals, it is tempting fate to attempt travel any time one is close to the passport's expiration. It can limit one's options in IRROPS and even more importantly, limit one's own ability to change an itinerary just because something pops up. A general rule of thumb would be to start the process at a year and then never have to worry.

irishguy28

that is incorrect.

All* airlines include in their T&Cs that if a passenger is required to be deported, the fines and costs that the airline incur are to be paid by the passenger. By buying a ticket on these airlines, the passengers agree to these terms.


https://www.condor.com/us/druck/agb.html


*I haven't checked every airline, and some airlines don't operate in areas where it is likely/possible that any pax would be refused entry. However, for any airline operating longhaul flights for which I have ever checked, I have found similar terms quite quickly in their T&Cs. It is fully in keeping with the maxim that the passenger is responsible for ensuring their eligibility for travel and that while the airline may refuse carriage, even if they bring a passenger who shouldn't have travelled in the first place, the expense and cost is to be borne by the passenger.