HELP! Refused entry over 6 month rule
 

Hi all -

I'm a dual citizen of both the UK and Australia currently living in the UK and I had booked a trip to get back to Aus for a family wedding. I had decided to go via singapore both in an effort to break up the flight and to spend a couple of nights there in the Marina Sands as a nice bday present.

My trip was as follows:

LHR - DXB 0 SIN. Emirates (codesharing with Qantas)
Reconnecting via a Jetstar flight to Melbourne
SYD - DXB - LHR Emirates

The Emirates/Qantas flights were booked with lastminute.com

However yesterday at Heathrow, I was refused entry on the flight by Qantas at the check-in desk as I had only 5.5 months left on my passports (both expiring only days apart) and I am required to have 6. (My wife's passports were fine).

I tried a bunch of different things, including talking with the emirates desk, the qantas desk and lastminute.com, and they all told me the same thing = it's my fault, you should have spoken to the singapore embassy when booking the ticket, and no compensation is available. You need to go home, get a new passport, and book new flights at additional cost.

Naturally I'm gutted, and it's been very stressful, and I have a few questions I was hoping some people can help me with (any help GREATLY appreciated as I have not had much luck getting straight answers from staff).

1) Just how much of my fault is this? Perhaps this is a schoolboy error, and a few of you are scoffing, but I have travelled fairly regularly via this route and others over the last 10 years and I have never heard of this rule. To me, an expiration date is an expiration date and this could all be easily solved in just letting me know before I fly. It's not mentioned in any of the documentation either. You are asked to enter your passport number when booking, and I'm confused why it didn't flag anything there. I have since spoken to a couple of people who said they have tried to book flights online before and when entering the passport number it has validated the expiry date and refused the booking because of the 6 month rule - but for me it allowed it.

2) I tried to arrange flights where I would reconnect in singapore but not actually leave the airport, therefore not thinking that the 6 month rule would apply. But I was informed that the rule is also in place for the airline itself (and apparently most others when flying outside of Europe). Why therefore do they say I should have checked with the embassy when it's their own rule as well?

3) Does anyone know if my travel insurance would typically cover this, or American Express (booked with a rewards gold card).

4) Does anyone else have any extra advice how I can make a claim, or if I have any leg to stand on for grounds to complain? It does seem a shame to say the least to tell me bad luck and to be so out of pocket for a simple error that I was not informed of. If I miss a flight, they do their best to get me on another fight, but for this I just lose it altogether!

In the meantime I have gone home and booked an emergency one day passport for Monday which apparently I'll have by 1pm. I now have the weekend to work out a game plan.

Thanks for your time!

It is the passengers responsibility to ensure they comply with the entry requirements for all countries they are transiting and travelling to.

There is almost certainly a similar clause in your travel insurance.

You really have no grounds for complaint with the airline, your credit card, your travel insurance or any other entity other than yourself, sorry.

Thanks Nux - however I have been refused to even travel to Australia (stopping in singapore or dubai airport) even though I'm an Australian citizen - they said it's their policy for the actual airline.

Yes many airlines require you to meet the entry requirements for the countries you are transiting.

Thanks Nux - should they not specifically mention this then when validating my passport, and on the numerous emails and documentation they supply me with?

Documentation requirements are detailed in the conditions of carriage, to include the purchaser's responsibilities.

This is not about fault, it is about responsibility. It is 100% the responsibility of the passenger to assure that he presents himself with all documentation. If that fails, it is 100% his responsibility to rebook.

Nobody else has any responsibility to advise, note or otherwise warn.

Passing all of this, I would nonetheless call QR, explain the circumstances, plead for mercy and see if they might rebook with some penalty rather than the purchase of a new ticket. Keep your composure, do not even remotely suggest that this is anybody's fault but your own, and ask for help.

As an aside, no carrier in its right mind accepts passengers for carriage who could not be admitted to scheduled connection points if the transit for some reason fails. The problems associated with lengthy delays occasioned by weather, illness and the like, all befall the carrier.

A data point - I travel internationally 1-2 times per year at most, and have been fully aware of this rule for quite a while.

I agree with the above posters as this is a relatively well known rule albeit one that can be overlooked. A simple internet search will provide a plethora of results.

My advice is to apply for an emergency passport with either country, though Australia might be better.

Best of luck.

H

It's possible, for a hefty fee, to get a British passport renewed on the same day by going in person to the passport office near Victoria station in London.

HELP! Refused entry over 6 month rule
 

Many countries require passports to be valid for at least 6 months in order to enter. That's just the way it is. So always make sure you have at least that.

The reason the carrier won't cut you any slack is because if they knowingly carry someone who will be denied entry, they will be responsible for returning you to your origin on the next flight when immigration denies entry (potentially even kicking another confirmed passenger off, if the flight is full) as well as subject to fines. I don't know of any carrier that would want to risk that, knowing that the passport isn't valid for entry. It's the same reason airlines check visas at check in and in some cases, boarding - they want to make sure all pax have the correct entry docs.

It is always the travelers responsibility to make sure they meet the eligibility requirements for entry into whatever county they will be visiting. And the airlines check that. You found out the hard way, unfortunately.

I have seen rare instances of fare rules allowing for a refund if documents are not granted. But only ex-India to the US, IIRC, and I think it was specifically for if a Visa was denied.

Almost all airlines have this clause in case there's an issue during transit, and you need to stay in transit country.

If you are lucky, the contract of carriage may allow you to get a full refund due to refusal to carriage. Not all carriers offer that. Some do.

If you booked one ticket connecting in SIN to MEL, then you would not have a problem. The problem is your first ticket ends in SIN. The 6-month requirement is for passengers arriving in SIN.

HELP! Refused entry over 6 month rule
 

Definitely the responsibility lies with the passenger to know each countries visa/passport requirements.

Maybe if you routed thru a country that didn't require at least 6 month validity they may consider. Of course any and all change cost would be incurred by you.

China is a good example. Although you can get a transit visa, if your country is listed, airlines will still double check to make sure all "minimum" requirements are met.

Such clause does not exist. If there is a special requirement for transit it is metioned within the entry rules of that country and best looked up on timatic.
However, OP had a ticket to SIN and not to Australia with EK/QF. At departure the airline requires proof for entry allowence at destination of this travel. It doesn't matter to the airline how the pax will proceed onwards, transit,layover, walking, swimming or flying on an other ticket.
Therefore the only solution would have been to book a through ticket to Australia. It does not help to book another ticket SIN-MEL to shorten the stopover into a transit layover because the first trip still ends in SIN.