My brother in law was supposed to be on a flight from Australia to Canada through Honululu. His travel agent never told him that he needs to get a transit visa for USA also.When he went to airport in sydney he was not allowed to board as he had no transit visa for USA. He was supposed to be travelling by Air CAnada and has visa for canada. I wan to know who is resposible for this . Travel agent ? and also is there a way to get full refund or he has to settle for 50% of actual amonunt now offered by travel agent. What is best option and best recourse here>

I don't really think this has anything to do with the Austrailia forum....

The person traveling has the ultimate responsibility that the requirements are met to enter the country he/she wishes to travel. Australia passport holders don't need a visa but from another country one probably needs a C-1 visa.

The traveler is at fault although the travel agent should have explained the visa process if they were any good at their job. This sort of information is probably one of the reasons your brother hired them.

The airline gets fined (I believe) if a travel gets to the USA without proper documents so the airline is definitely not to blame.....UNLESS your brother was holding an Australian passport. Then they involuntarily denied your brother boarding without cause.

The only issue I see here is if advice on USA visas was part of the service your brother paid the travel agent for. If he didn't get the service he paid for, he's probably entitled to some sort of refund but I don't know how one would actually collect on such a thing.

I think it is common sense to look up the entry requirements of a country you are traveling to/through. I'd probably advise your brother to take generous 50% the travel agent is willing to give him and cough it up to experience. I'm sure he'll never make the same mistake again.

Ridiculous, shameful, silly, retarded, useless rule.

The US should be ostracised for this.

But you don't turn over your responsibility to follow a rule, however retarded, to your travel agent.

Sorry that it's reached this level of stupidity. Let's hope for some change soon.

Incidentally, this is not specific to Australia and more people would benefit from it in Travelbuzz.

People going from France to France (Tahiti) with no desire to enter the US have the same issue, for example.

Unfortunately, I agree that the responsibility for obtaining the necessary travel documents belongs to the traveler. The only caveat I think that might make your brother's travel agent responsible is if they directly advised which visas were required (i.e. if they told him he needed a visa for Canada but didn't tell him about transit visas for the US).

You might want to try to speak with the airline directly about getting a refund; it's not likely they will refund a non-refunable ticket, but it's worth trying.

Agree with the advice given so far.

Actually its not just the US... the UK has similar requirements for SOME nationals transitting in the UK. It was introduced because large numbers of travellers were gaining entry to the UK by getting visas for 3rd countries, but stopping in the UK during transit. They would claim asylum, cause an investigation lasting weeks, during which time they would disappear into the black economy.

Its not the case that all nationals that would require a visa to enter the UK also need one just to transit there.

Maybe the motivation for the measure in the US is different (?terrorism?).

Your brother should review the T&C's of the ticket. Maybe they allow applying the value to a new ticket, in which he could then repurchase -- and possibly get more than 50% of the value. If this is the case, he could apply for a US visa, or if there are direct flights -- take one of those (if there are, I am surprised the airline did not put him on a NS flight).

I have also seen T&C's make reference to refunds in the case of improper visa's / denial of travel due to same. Maybe these rules will bear in his favor (or favour ).

Surely the big issue here is whether or not the individual was advised that the plane would make a transit stop in the US. This responsibility should (IMO) lie with the provider, be that the agent or airline. If you buy a ticket on a Canadian airline to fly from Oz to Canada, it's by no means rational to assume you'll need a US visa.

I think this was handled badly by the airport staff. A friend of mine (Hungarian passport) hit the same issue some years ago, flying AC from LHR to SYD via YVR. On check-in at YVR, the visa issue surfaced. AC admitted liability as this should have been picked up in London and routed them via HKG at no additional cost. However they then had to apply for US visas for the return leg, costing far more than they saved by taking a trans-atlantic/trans-pacific route in the first place.

I think it is the traveller's fault. It is a person's own responsibility these days to personally make sure about visa requirements/security notices/carry-on restrictions/etc before getting on a plane.

I learned this the hard way: I transited through Shanghai on my way from SE Asia to North America once. I repeatedly asked the travel agent if I required a Chinese visa, even though I was only switching planes at the airport. He said no every time. I arrived in Shanghai and was promptly taken into custody by the local authorities for arriving in China without a visa. They took my luggage, my passport, and tickets and placed me alone in a holding cell. Fortunately, about 45 minutes later, the police supervisor came by and let me go, having verified my identity and my onward travel plans for that same day. I was sent on my merry way with a reminder to get a transit visa the next time.

The lesson is: it is your own responsibility to verify what documents you need, not your travel agent's.

So you feel that all airlines now have to be immigration experts as well? Should airlines have to keep completely up-to-date on US visa requirements for citizens of every single country in the world? What if a citizen of Burkina Faso wishes to travel from Canada via the US to a third country? And if airlines were required to provide such guidelines, you can be sure there would lawsuits if they gave out information that was incorrect.

It has been discussed ad nauseum on this board that most US airports are simply not designed for international-to-international connections, as domestic and international flights can leave from the same terminal. Inasmuch as US airports are not going to spend millions of dollars to redesign their terminals to have sterile areas, how would YOU address this problem (other than simply referring to it as "retarded")? As for traveling from "France to France" airlines traveling such a route are not being forced to have a connection in the US; that is their choice. Why not write to the airline in question and demand that they use Canada or Mexico as a transit point instead?

A number of countries require the airlines to be competent in this area or be subject to financial penalty for lack of competence in the area were they to transport someone with improper/inadequate travel documentation (i.e., including lack of visas where required).

The following engine found here too was initially created for the vendors -- not the passengers -- because of the vendor's financial responsibility/liability related to entry/exit requirements.

If a vendor's misinformation, communicated to the client, results in a an outcome that is materially detrimental to the clien, then a remedy through court may well be pursued by the client. Anything wrong with that?

Yes. That is the law. If an airline transports someone who is not from a VWP country and does not have a valid US visa to the US, then the airline is fined.

Of course that doesn't mean they will volunteer the info to the pax until the day of travel. That's not their job; but it would be good customer service.

Quite simple- I would address it the same way every single country in the world has adressed it.

It's called "airside transfer".

This issue has been dealt with using a nuclear option and it is hurting the image of the US abroad. I'll grant you that "retarded" is inappropriate. Asinine is a better word.

nothing

I agree. Airside transfer or not having to deplane during transit. Isn't the need to deplane something required by US security rules?