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 20, 2014, 10:58 am
  #151  
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 jmastron
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 -
People keep missing the main point. As far as Kuwait is concerned, an Israeli passport is no more valid that a Justice League of America membership card from a comic book.

(Is that fair? IMO, no it isn't. But I don't rule the world. Yet.)

The airline has a rule that a passenger must present a valid passport. So does every other airline on the planet.
Tchiowa is offline  
Old Sep 20, 2014, 4:03 pm
  #152  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,566
Originally Posted by jmastron
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.
Fifth freedom privileges are usually granted through some sort of bilateral treaty or open skies arrangement. If either the US or UK starts to violate those types of international treaties, other countries are going to retaliate by blocking their flights.

Originally Posted by jmastron
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.
KU may know it, but the Kuwaiti government doesn't. KU is doing the politically simple thing and just rebooking in order to avoid becoming the center of an international dispute and getting bad press.

Originally Posted by jmastron
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.
Timatic is not a legally binding authority on who can board a plane. Neither Timatic nor IATA can overrule a nation's laws.

Originally Posted by jmastron
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.
Actually, yes, the customer is responsible for determining the operating carrier and verifying its rules. The fact that you think the rule is "obscure" is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by jmastron
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.
Since when was "this is not a common problem to be aware of" a valid justification for not following the rules? I would think that any Israeli passport holder would be aware that many Muslim countries don't recognize the nation. If they aren't, it's on them.
cbn42 is offline  
Old Sep 20, 2014, 4:43 pm
  #153  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Programs: BA blue, LH Senator, KQ (FB) gold
Posts: 8,215
Originally Posted by cbn42


Since when was "this is not a common problem to be aware of" a valid justification for not following the rules? I would think that any Israeli passport holder would be aware that many Muslim countries don't recognize the nation. If they aren't, it's on them.

You talk about countries, but KU is an airline, not a country, and it appears a number of other Gulf airlines do not have this problem. The fact that KU attempts to mitigate by rebooking rather than saying, sorry, your problem, suggests that even they aren't comfortable dumping the whole thing on the the passenger.
You want to go where? is offline  
Old Sep 20, 2014, 6:10 pm
  #154  
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 You want to go where?
You talk about countries, but KU is an airline, not a country, and it appears a number of other Gulf airlines do not have this problem. The fact that KU attempts to mitigate by rebooking rather than saying, sorry, your problem, suggests that even they aren't comfortable dumping the whole thing on the the passenger.
KU is an airline .... owned by the Kuwaiti government.
Tchiowa is offline  
Old Sep 20, 2014, 6:35 pm
  #155  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by Tchiowa
KU is an airline .... owned by the Kuwaiti government.
What makes you sure that KU is technically owned by the Kuwaiti government? Have you examined its capitalization tables? Not everything considered a "state-owned enterprise" is technically owned directly by the government . Even most SOEs are not "the government".

The following is absolutely correct:

"KU is an airline, not a country, and it appears a number of other Gulf airlines do not have this problem. The fact that KU attempts to mitigate by rebooking rather than saying, sorry, your problem, suggests that even they aren't comfortable dumping the whole thing on the the passenger."
GUWonder is offline  
Old Sep 20, 2014, 9:32 pm
  #156  
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 GUWonder
What makes you sure that KU is technically owned by the Kuwaiti government?
I used to live there.
Tchiowa is offline  
Old Sep 20, 2014, 9:50 pm
  #157  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by Tchiowa
I used to live there.
And the Emir's immediate family knows me well. Neither of these facts convinces me that you know the answer to my question.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Sep 20, 2014, 10:25 pm
  #158  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 321
Originally Posted by Tchiowa
People keep missing the main point. As far as Kuwait is concerned, an Israeli passport is no more valid that a Justice League of America membership card from a comic book.

(Is that fair? IMO, no it isn't. But I don't rule the world. Yet.)

The airline has a rule that a passenger must present a valid passport. So does every other airline on the planet.
That may be true, but that doesn't necessarily help the airline. When operating in the US (as in any country), the airline is subject to the relevant laws regulating their activities. If declining to recognize the Israeli passport were considered illegal national origin discrimination (which common carriers can't engage in) the airline would have to comply with the law in the US, regardless of what they did elsewhere.
chessman is offline  
Old Sep 20, 2014, 11:05 pm
  #159  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,566
Originally Posted by You want to go where?
You talk about countries, but KU is an airline, not a country, and it appears a number of other Gulf airlines do not have this problem. The fact that KU attempts to mitigate by rebooking rather than saying, sorry, your problem, suggests that even they aren't comfortable dumping the whole thing on the the passenger.
KU probably just rebooked in order to avoid bad publicity in the US and UK. It is better for them to absorb the cost of rebooking for a few Israeli passengers, than to lose business from Americans and Europeans because they got bad press. I don't see any reason they were obligated to rebook.

Originally Posted by chessman
That may be true, but that doesn't necessarily help the airline. When operating in the US (as in any country), the airline is subject to the relevant laws regulating their activities. If declining to recognize the Israeli passport were considered illegal national origin discrimination (which common carriers can't engage in) the airline would have to comply with the law in the US, regardless of what they did elsewhere.
All businesses that operate internationally are required to comply with all relevant laws, including extraterritorial laws that apply outside the country that passed them. No business can cite one country's laws as a justification for not following another country's laws.
cbn42 is offline  
Old Sep 21, 2014, 12:09 am
  #160  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not here; there!
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold
Posts: 29,088
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry: BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.1030 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/417)

"No business can cite one country's laws as a justification for not following another country's laws."

While that may be true, if Kuwait law prohibits KU from transporting an Israeli passport holder between JFK and LHR, and if U.S. and/or U.K. law prohibits KU from discriminating against Israeli passport holders in the transportation of passengers locally between JFK and LHR, then KU might find itself with no alternative but to abandon the carriage of all passengers locally between JFK and LHR. The conflict of laws, if it exists, exists only because KU has opted to exercise its Fifth Freedom right to carry local traffic between JFK and LHR.
guv1976 is offline  
Old Sep 21, 2014, 1:00 am
  #161  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by guv1976
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry: BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.1030 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/417)

"No business can cite one country's laws as a justification for not following another country's laws."

While that may be true, if Kuwait law prohibits KU from transporting an Israeli passport holder between JFK and LHR, and if U.S. and/or U.K. law prohibits KU from discriminating against Israeli passport holders in the transportation of passengers locally between JFK and LHR, then KU might find itself with no alternative but to abandon the carriage of all passengers locally between JFK and LHR. The conflict of laws, if it exists, exists only because KU has opted to exercise its Fifth Freedom right to carry local traffic between JFK and LHR.
The US Government has a continuing history of making airlines -- more so US airlines -- discriminate against passengers even when the passengers are free persons and admissible for immigration control purposes. If the U.S. wants to see such discrimination continue when it comes to US airlines (and even, in some ways, non-US airlines), then why should the U.S. stop foreign carriers from discriminating against people based on citizenship? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think it's bad for both, but the US Government has acted otherwise for years and years in allowing -- and even demanding -- that its carriers and others' carriers discriminate against admissible persons with valid tickets.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Sep 21, 2014, 9:13 am
  #162  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Programs: BA blue, LH Senator, KQ (FB) gold
Posts: 8,215
Originally Posted by cbn42
KU probably just rebooked in order to avoid bad publicity in the US and UK. It is better for them to absorb the cost of rebooking for a few Israeli passengers, than to lose business from Americans and Europeans because they got bad press. I don't see any reason they were obligated to rebook.
I agree, except that I would remove the word 'just'. You are saying the same thing that I did. They aren't comfortable dumping this on the passenger, because they know there would be an uproar. That is why many corporations do the ethical thing when it isn't required by government regulation. I would remove the word 'just' because it suggests that there are other reasons companies make decisions besides their own economic interest. Exception: The owners of some closely-held private companies may make decisions for other reasons. However, if those decisions are too far off the economic best interest of the company, the company will go bankrupt.
You want to go where? is offline  
Old Sep 21, 2014, 10:56 am
  #163  
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 GUWonder
And the Emir's immediate family knows me well. Neither of these facts convinces me that you know the answer to my question.
Educating you is becoming a full time job.

From Kuwait Air web site:

https://www.kuwaitairways.com/en/abo...teprofile.aspx

"On the wave of the oil boom of the 1940s, a national carrier was born in 1954. Initially, Kuwait Airways Company served a limited network of Abadan, Beirut, Damascus and Jerusalem but a year later the fledgling carrier was facing economic hardship, and the government of Kuwait took a 50% interest in the airline, subsequently doubling the company's capital. Having entered the rough and tumble world of aviation, the government finally took out 100% share in Kuwait Airways."
Tchiowa is offline  
Old Sep 21, 2014, 8:12 pm
  #164  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by Tchiowa
Educating you is becoming a full time job.

From Kuwait Air web site:

https://www.kuwaitairways.com/en/abo...teprofile.aspx

"On the wave of the oil boom of the 1940s, a national carrier was born in 1954. Initially, Kuwait Airways Company served a limited network of Abadan, Beirut, Damascus and Jerusalem but a year later the fledgling carrier was facing economic hardship, and the government of Kuwait took a 50% interest in the airline, subsequently doubling the company's capital. Having entered the rough and tumble world of aviation, the government finally took out 100% share in Kuwait Airways."
Are its shares held by a KIA fund or are they held directly by the government? There are legal distinctions between the two even if beneficially owned by the government indirectly.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Sep 21, 2014, 8:41 pm
  #165  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: 대한민국 (South Korea) - ex-PVG (上海)
Programs: UA MM / LT Gold (LT UC), DL SM, AA PLT (AC), OZ, KE; GE and Korean SES (like GE); Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,996
Is it too simplistic for US and UK citizens to refuse to fly (i.e., boycott) Kuwait Airways until they become rational? If there were far fewer passengers JFK - LHR, the airline might decide it is OK to fly Israelis between the US and UK (they guess could still prohibit flights to/from Kuwait). Kuwaitis are lucky that are not citizens of a province of Iraq, due to the US and UK saving them.
relangford 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.