Involuntary denied boarding for visa by SQ (compensation?)
 

My mum was travelling from SYD-BOM two months ago. She has an Australian Passport and is also an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI). There was a bit of a mix up at the Airport as she recently got a new Australian passport (old one expired) which did not contain her OCI Life Long Visa, she did however have her OCI booklet/passport on her. SQ staff insisted that she needed this visa in her new Australian Passport to travel and denied her boarding. I rang the Indian Consulate who said this was not a requirement and they issued an email which enabled mum to get the afternoon flight, also she had no dramas when actually entering Mumbai. My understanding was that TIMATIC is the official system they must use for visa guidelines. Having complained to SQ about the matter they say they are placing reliance on information provided by a third part visa service provider VFS. Per TIMATIC mum should have been allowed to travel. After months of correspondence SQ are refusing to take responsibility for the error and to provide involuntary denied boarding compensation. Does anyone have any suggestions on next steps? Or a view on if we are in the right?

SQ is not the only airline relying on third party visa verification. At least CX is the same. Rules are complicated and changes all the time with little or no notice. So many airlines rely on third party check. IMHO, you didn't do anything wrong, but neither did SQ.

My experience of SQ is that they will *never* admit they are wrong even when you can cite chapter and verse showing how they are wrong

I would imagine the main consideration here is where there are any laws in Australia or India (or maybe SG) that mandate any IDB payout. I know EU (and I suppose US) laws specify the quantum of compensation in IDB scenarios, but obviously these don't apply to a SYD-BOM flight.

The trouble is SQ are refusing to acknowledge that it's a case of IDB. They say they followed regulations. In fact they have changed their story. First they said they followed TIMATC then I called them out on it and now they say they followed VFS. Is there any means to escalate?

What losses did you incur, exactly (other than time and hassle)?

If I understand your initial post correctly, i.e. "... enabled mum to get the afternoon flight, also she had no dramas when actually entering Mumbai," she did eventually get on a later, same-day flight to BOM. Did you have to pay extra for this second flight?

I dare to say that with an IDB case based on visa-irregularities you would have a hard time to claim compensation under EC261/2004 from any airline in europe.

That is incorrect. If EC 261/2004 applied, there would be a simple factual determination to be made. E.g., "was the visa requirement properly made and thus the boarding properly denied?" If so, no compensation. If so, EC 261/2004, in all its majesty, would apply and the aggrieved passenger could apply to the carrier and then the courts for compensation. EC 261/2004, of course does not apply here.

Unfortunately Australia doesn't have IDB laws. While you may wish to pursue SQ for some sort of compensation based on goodwill/inconvenience, you will have a hard time pointing to any specific law for protection.

And stress... an old lady alone at an outpost airport experiencing being put in limbo, having to argue with checkin staff, plus calls for help to her son and in turn to the Indian consulate. All would not have been caused had the checkin staff verified against TIMATIC and not VFS in the first place.

What is incorrect :confused:

Um, I think the bit he quoted?

Spot on. Rule somewhere + robot training + kiasu culture = losing battle.

I had an identical experience, and resolved it by doing as my Singaporean colleagues advised - create a big stink and escalate at least 2 levels.

All airlines with extensive international flights rely on third party providers for visa information.

Already tried that. They won't budge. They didn't use TIMATC like they are supposed to. Anybody have ideas on other means of escalation? Department of fair trading couldn't help and recommended legal aid.