Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > TravelBuzz
Reload this Page >

Alternatives when airline refuses to board due to passport's nationality.

Alternatives when airline refuses to board due to passport's nationality.

Old Sep 19, 2014, 7:55 am
  #136  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 42
Originally Posted by cbn42
Just a random, related question. Does the US restrict who can board a flight on its carriers that don't touch the country? For example, if someone on the no-fly list books BOM-AMS-MSP on DL, would they get blocked from boarding at BOM, or would they be allowed to fly the first segment and then get stranded at AMS?
Back when Pan Am operated intra-German routes, I sat next to a North Korean passport holder flying from Frankfurt to West Berlin. It was either 1988 or 1989. He was in a business suit and thought he was just a normal Korean(i.e. South Korean). I mean, who would have thought that a North Korean would be flying on Pan Am, which was almost like an American flag carrier. I thought he was kidding about being North Korean, until he showed me his DPRK passport. To this day, that guy remains the only North Korean I've seen in person. I mean, I've seen more pandas than North Koreans... that's just strikes me as odd.
ThomasSmrs is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2014, 9:45 am
  #137  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Programs: United MileagePlus Silver, Nexus, Global Entry
Posts: 8,798
Originally Posted by Ber2dca
..the airline simply doesn't want to transport Israelis as a political message.
Apologies for straying into P/R but man does this make me angry.

If it wasn't for the billions spent, as well as the lives lost, Kuwait Airlines would be Iraqi Air.

If this was a situation of Kuwait refusing to transport an Israeli to Toronto I'd be writing my MP, the PM & the media demanding that their landing rights be revoked immediately.
gglave is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2014, 9:55 am
  #138  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bangkok or San Francisco
Programs: United 1k, Marriott Lifetime PE, Former DL Gold, Former SQ Solitaire, HH Gold
Posts: 11,886
Originally Posted by GaryD
You mean, the emir of Kuwait is an ally of the U.S. Government.

We should not defend monarchs who don't let people board a plane in or to the U.S., because they don't like the (non-monarchical) country they're from.
"Should"? Judgement call and you may be right. But the reality is we do and they are a sovereign nation and they have their laws. I don't agree with all of them, but then I don't agree with all the US laws.

Kuwait Air doesn't have any choice but to obey the laws of their nation, where ever they are.
Tchiowa is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2014, 10:18 am
  #139  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not here; there!
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold
Posts: 29,499
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry: BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.1030 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/417)

Originally Posted by Tchiowa
Originally Posted by GaryD
You mean, the emir of Kuwait is an ally of the U.S. Government.

We should not defend monarchs who don't let people board a plane in or to the U.S., because they don't like the (non-monarchical) country they're from.
"Should"? Judgement call and you may be right. But the reality is we do and they are a sovereign nation and they have their laws. I don't agree with all of them, but then I don't agree with all the US laws.

Kuwait Air doesn't have any choice but to obey the laws of their nation, where ever they are.
It will be interesting to see the results of the lawsuit mentioned in Post #25.
guv1976 is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2014, 10:56 am
  #140  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: ECP
Programs: DL Diamond
Posts: 1,658
Originally Posted by pseudoswede
EK also flies JFK-MXP (flight #205/206).
EK will fly an Israeli. They will even fly them on a Dubai-bound flight so long as they are connecting... So an Israeli could fly, for instance, CDG-DXB-HKG. They still can't enter Dubai as the UAE doesn't recognize Israel, but that doesn't preclude EK's computers from "reading" the Israeli passport...
DC777Fan is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2014, 11:25 am
  #141  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bangkok or San Francisco
Programs: United 1k, Marriott Lifetime PE, Former DL Gold, Former SQ Solitaire, HH Gold
Posts: 11,886
Originally Posted by guv1976
It will be interesting to see the results of the lawsuit mentioned in Post #25.
As Kuwait Air is owned by the government of Kuwait, any state lawsuit in the US is pretty much doomed.
Tchiowa is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2014, 11:28 am
  #142  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: ECP
Programs: DL Diamond
Posts: 1,658
Originally Posted by Tchiowa
As Kuwait Air is owned by the government of Kuwait, any state lawsuit in the US is pretty much doomed.
Insofar as monetary compensation... perhaps. But if Kuwait Air wants to keep flying to the United States, they'll need to address a lawsuit against them eventually--and they may well prevail in court.

As far as I understand it, though, the law suit is a US Citizen against the US DOT?
DC777Fan is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2014, 11:56 am
  #143  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not here; there!
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold
Posts: 29,499
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry: BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.1030 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/417)

Originally Posted by DC777Fan
Originally Posted by Tchiowa
As Kuwait Air is owned by the government of Kuwait, any state lawsuit in the US is pretty much doomed.
Insofar as monetary compensation... perhaps. But if Kuwait Air wants to keep flying to the United States, they'll need to address a lawsuit against them eventually--and they may well prevail in court.

As far as I understand it, though, the law suit is a US Citizen against the US DOT?
Yes. It's a federal -- not a state -- lawsuit, apparently seeking to compel the DOT to enforce anti-discrimination laws which the plaintiff contends apply to his situation.
guv1976 is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2014, 12:20 pm
  #144  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bangkok or San Francisco
Programs: United 1k, Marriott Lifetime PE, Former DL Gold, Former SQ Solitaire, HH Gold
Posts: 11,886
Originally Posted by DC777Fan
Insofar as monetary compensation... perhaps. But if Kuwait Air wants to keep flying to the United States, they'll need to address a lawsuit against them eventually--and they may well prevail in court.

As far as I understand it, though, the law suit is a US Citizen against the US DOT?
That's strange. The lawsuit is about the Kuwait Air website not having Israel in the drop down box for nationality so he couldn't buy a ticket. Not sure what the DOT has to do with that.

But our legal system is a bit screwy.
Tchiowa is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2014, 12:25 pm
  #145  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: ECP
Programs: DL Diamond
Posts: 1,658
Originally Posted by Tchiowa
That's strange. The lawsuit is about the Kuwait Air website not having Israel in the drop down box for nationality so he couldn't buy a ticket. Not sure what the DOT has to do with that.

But our legal system is a bit screwy.
The DOT -- and by the DOT, I mean an unelected bureaucrat at the DOT -- decided that Kuwait Air's refusal to transport Israelis (in this case on the JFK-LHR route) does not constitute discrimination. The federal lawsuit, as I understand it, challenges that decision.
DC777Fan is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2014, 1:44 pm
  #146  
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
Originally Posted by DC777Fan
The DOT -- and by the DOT, I mean an unelected bureaucrat at the DOT -- decided that Kuwait Air's refusal to transport Israelis (in this case on the JFK-LHR route) does not constitute discrimination. The federal lawsuit, as I understand it, challenges that decision.
The DOT allows airlines to do what all common carriers with service to/from the US do: discriminate based on citizenship/nationality in determining which documents are and are not acceptable for international travel on their own planes.

If the DOT is going to absolutely ban carriers from discriminating on the basis of passenger citizenship when it comes to transport on their own international flights serving the U.S., then all common carriers with service to/from this country better be prepared for massive amounts of fines (from the U.S. and foreign governments) for transporting people, regardless of citizenship, who may or may not be admissible and/or eligible for transport under the laws of all involved countries (the sending country, the vehicle flag country, and the receiving country) for a given flight.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2014, 5:32 pm
  #147  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not here; there!
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold
Posts: 29,499
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry: BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.1030 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/417)

Originally Posted by GUWonder
Originally Posted by DC777Fan
The DOT -- and by the DOT, I mean an unelected bureaucrat at the DOT -- decided that Kuwait Air's refusal to transport Israelis (in this case on the JFK-LHR route) does not constitute discrimination. The federal lawsuit, as I understand it, challenges that decision.
The DOT allows airlines to do what all common carriers with service to/from the US do: discriminate based on citizenship/nationality in determining which documents are and are not acceptable for international travel on their own planes.

If the DOT is going to absolutely ban carriers from discriminating on the basis of passenger citizenship when it comes to transport on their own international flights serving the U.S., then all common carriers with service to/from this country better be prepared for massive amounts of fines (from the U.S. and foreign governments) for transporting people, regardless of citizenship, who may or may not be admissible and/or eligible for transport under the laws of all involved countries (the sending country, the vehicle flag country, and the receiving country) for a given flight.
Are there any situations, other than Kuwait's Fifth Freedom JFK-LHR and LHR-JFK flights, where the laws of the carrier's flag country require discrimination that is not also required by the laws of a flight's sending/receiving countries? Or is this a one-off situation merely involving these particular KU flights?

Nothing -- except, perhaps, economics -- requires KU to carry local traffic between JFK and LHR.
guv1976 is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2014, 6:04 pm
  #148  
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
Originally Posted by guv1976

Are there any situations, other than Kuwait's Fifth Freedom JFK-LHR and LHR-JFK flights, where the laws of the carrier's flag country require discrimination that is not also required by the laws of a flight's sending/receiving countries? Or is this a one-off situation merely involving these particular KU flights?
There have been. US carriers have been denied the ability to fly some blacklisted persons even when the blacklisted person is a free person and admissible in the sending and receiving countries. But that has mostly been an example of discrimination not based on citizenship.

U.S.-blacklisted countries' citizens have also been subject to extra-security screening on the basis of nothing more than citizenship status even when the free person with a blacklisted country's passport is admissible in the sending and countries. This has largely been an example of discrimination based on citizenship.

In both cases, the discrimination is driven by the carrier's flag country rules.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2014, 6:31 pm
  #149  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,577
Originally Posted by ThomasSmrs
Back when Pan Am operated intra-German routes, I sat next to a North Korean passport holder flying from Frankfurt to West Berlin. It was either 1988 or 1989. He was in a business suit and thought he was just a normal Korean(i.e. South Korean). I mean, who would have thought that a North Korean would be flying on Pan Am, which was almost like an American flag carrier. I thought he was kidding about being North Korean, until he showed me his DPRK passport. To this day, that guy remains the only North Korean I've seen in person. I mean, I've seen more pandas than North Koreans... that's just strikes me as odd.
Sure, but did the US ever have a law banning North Koreans from traveling? Not recognizing the country's government and banning its citizens from traveling are two different things. After all, thousands of Iranian citizens travel to the US on student or work visas every year. My understanding is that North Koreans cannot travel because of the policies of their own government, not foreign governments.

But regardless, that was an interesting episode. Thanks for sharing.
cbn42 is offline  
Old Sep 20, 2014, 9:35 am
  #150  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,352
Originally Posted by guv1976
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry: BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.1030 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/417)



Are there any situations, other than Kuwait's Fifth Freedom JFK-LHR and LHR-JFK flights, where the laws of the carrier's flag country require discrimination that is not also required by the laws of a flight's sending/receiving countries? Or is this a one-off situation merely involving these particular KU flights?

Nothing -- except, perhaps, economics -- requires KU to carry local traffic between JFK and LHR.
Exactly, and KU should not be allowed 5th Freedom privileges to carry traffic between JFK and LHR until they can take all categories of passengers eligible to fly that route, period. Let the Kuwaiti government subsidize the loss if they prefer to keep this law on their books.

All of the BS about "didn't present a valid passport" etc is just that -- and KU knows it, which is why they are quick to rebook, rather than try to claim that the passenger was wrong and the ticket value is lost. Timatic doesn't even have a field for "airline", so IATA (whose rules the ticket was purchased under) doesn't appear to allow airlines to arbitrarily ignore passports from a specific country when it's not related to verifying that the customer will be able to enter the destination, which is not at issue here.

The customer isn't responsible for verifying obscure rules of a code-share partner -- when I book a United regional jet flight, do I have to call Skywest to ask whether they will take my California license, etc? No. And as pointed out, this is not a common problem to be aware of, as US carriers can take North Korean, Iranian, and other passport holders, and carriers like EK will take Israeli passport holders even connecting through DXB.

IMO, until the practice of selling these tickets is ceased (and the DOT should get involved to do so), the airline must rebook proactively, and potentially pay IDB/EU261 compensation if the replacement flights are not very close to the same time.
jmastron is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.