Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Turkish Airlines | Miles&Smiles
Reload this Page >

Successful Legal Cases Against Turkish Airlines

Successful Legal Cases Against Turkish Airlines

Old May 20, 2023, 8:22 am
  #61  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Programs: TK Elite Plus,QR Platinum,BAEC GGL,ITA Executive, AFKL Gold, HH Diamond,Bonvoy Gold,ALL Gold
Posts: 14,143
Originally Posted by hansyuwiwb
from personal experience. The agents are physically the same people, but when you submit it in Turkish they assume you have more information/will not give up easily.

EC261 equivalent Turkish law is there -
https://web.shgm.gov.tr/doc4/shy-passenger.pdf

In effect since 2012
It's nice to hear that someone has a positive experience with TK in Turkish. I personally didn't have any incident with TK recently so can't comment on 2022-2023 levels but in the past I usually got copy-paste answers trying me to give up.

PS: I know what SHGM rules are but usually from most of the cases that I hear from others, but the regulator is usually backing up TK but when it comes to foreign ( non-Turkish carriers ) then the decision is in favor of the passenger
ISTFlyer is offline  
Old Sep 16, 2023, 3:49 pm
  #62  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Geneva
Programs: Star Alliance, SkyTeam
Posts: 35
Would appreciate your guidance on this. It's a bit technical and visa related, about denied boarding.

My in-laws live in Congo Republic. They came to IST on TK and spent a few days there and then were about to board TK to CMN. They have passports of the Republic of Congo.

Despite Timatic not being fully precise, they are over 55 years and do not need visa or electronic travel authorisation (and this is actually confirmed by the official website from Morocco when you try to apply for it, and was also confirmed to me in writing from the Moroccan Consulate in Istanbul - but the passengers did not have this confirmation with them at the time).

TK denied them boarding. They had to pay a No-Show fee and additional hotel nights.

Repeated claims for financial compensation on their "feedback" page were rejected.

I want to go to court. My question is: which court can I go to? I live in Switzerland. Can I just do it here?
kiribati is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2023, 7:02 am
  #63  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: got2flyfar (YouTube)
Programs: SkyMiles Gold, FB Silver, TK Elite/*G, ITA Premium, Hilton Gold; BW Diamond Select; Radisson Premium
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by kiribati
I want to go to court. My question is: which court can I go to? I live in Switzerland. Can I just do it here?
This is a question of Swiss law. As Switzerland is outside EU, Regulation (EU) no. 1215/2015 on the question of jurisdiction does not apply and I cannot help you with more than that. I would guess that you being in Switzerland would be irrelevant to the case as the domicile of the passengers would be the only relevant here. At the end, It might be the Turkish courts you might need to go to.
MitjaPod is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2023, 9:04 am
  #64  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Programs: TK Elite
Posts: 11,489
It sounds like this claim has absolutely zero relations to Switzerland. Why do you expect a Swiss judge to be interested in interfering here, let alone to interpret Moroccan immigration law? Any sane judge will look for all opportunities to dismiss the claim based on no jurisdiction.

As for the merits of a claim, any case involving immigration law and visa is complicated and as it is the responsibility of the passenger to fulfill all immigration and visa requirements, so it may very well be uphill to hold TK liable here. You mention yourself that your parents didn't bring confirmation that they were exempt from visa requirements; this may lead to any claim against TK to fail. But good luck!
irishguy28 and nacho like this.
SK AAR is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2023, 9:58 am
  #65  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: got2flyfar (YouTube)
Programs: SkyMiles Gold, FB Silver, TK Elite/*G, ITA Premium, Hilton Gold; BW Diamond Select; Radisson Premium
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by SK AAR
As for the merits of a claim, any case involving immigration law and visa is complicated and as it is the responsibility of the passenger to fulfill all immigration and visa requirements, so it may very well be uphill to hold TK liable here. You mention yourself that your parents didn't bring confirmation that they were exempt from visa requirements; this may lead to any claim against TK to fail. But good luck!
Don't jump to conclusions here. It is simple: the airline bears no general obligation to deny boarding to passengers on immigration laws of the destination country. The airline is doing this to protect itself against the cost of carriage et al of passengers rejected at the border. So it is up to the airline to KNOW the immigration law. No passenger should prove that there are no immigration restrictions against them. This is the basic logic in the law: you never have to prove what is not there. Plus, if the law provides for an exception for people of 55+ of age the airline should know that from the law itself. If it relies on the IATA system, it is the airline's problem. Then it shall hold IATA liable, if the airline can do that. I think merits in this case are likely. Don't give up.
the810 and kiribati like this.
MitjaPod is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2023, 10:42 am
  #66  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Programs: TK Elite
Posts: 11,489
I don't agree. It is up to pax/it is the responsibility of pax to fulfill all immigration requirements; there is no obligation on the part of carriers to transport pax if there is (reasonable) risk that they may be denied entry. As you mention the carrier will be responsible to transport the pax back and may even be heavily fined for bringing pax without them fulfilling entry requirements. So if TK had reasonable doubt that the pax would not be allowed entry to Morocco TK did right in denying the pax to board the flight. I'm not qualified in Moroccan entry requirements, visa etc so no qualified opinion on whether TK had reasonable doubt, but if pax didn't bring proof that they were exempt from visa requirements I believe we are close to a situation where TK could have reasonable doubts. Also if TIMAC is not clear about this.
irishguy28 likes this.
SK AAR is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2023, 10:50 am
  #67  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: got2flyfar (YouTube)
Programs: SkyMiles Gold, FB Silver, TK Elite/*G, ITA Premium, Hilton Gold; BW Diamond Select; Radisson Premium
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by SK AAR
I don't agree. It is up to pax/it is the responsibility of pax to fulfill all immigration requirements...
You may not agree (and I think I read somewhere you work in aviation), but the law would hold the airline liable for its faulty decision. In the above case the pax has fulfilled the immigration requirement, just the airline did the mistake of assessing it didn't.

Originally Posted by SK AAR
...there is no obligation on the part of carriers to transport pax if there is (reasonable) risk that they may be denied entry. [...] So if TK had reasonable doubt that the pax would not be allowed entry to Morocco TK did right in denying the pax to board the flight.
Reasonable risk would not be enough here. The airline would need to be certain that the immigration requirements would not be met. And because the airline is a company, it would have a higher level of due diligence, ergo the requirement of knowing the immigration law with all its exceptions. If there is a visa exception for people over 55 years, then the airline DID NOT fulfill its due diligence obligation to correctly assess if visa requirements are met.

Originally Posted by SK AAR
As you mention the carrier will be responsible to transport the pax back and may even be heavily fined for bringing pax without them fulfilling entry requirements. So if TK had reasonable doubt that the pax would not be allowed entry to Morocco TK did right in denying the pax to board the flight.
Not necessarily responsible for carrying without payment - the country that denies the person entry would have to bear costs. However, local laws may require different. Besides, the pax has already paid return, didn't they? This is just greed what we are talking now about - the greed from the airlines.

I would love to see this in the court, which would prove you wrong SK AAR. I see from your flawed logic that you come from the business and think only $$$ and not also .
the810 likes this.
MitjaPod is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2023, 3:18 pm
  #68  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Programs: TK E+, RJ S, AZ E
Posts: 1,852
Carriers receive entry requirements from the TIMATIC system. In the case of OP, pax over 55 traveling to Marroco with a Congo, Republic, passport do not require anything special. But the info on TIMATIC doesn't reflect this and do require AVEM (prior authorization) from any such pax regardless of age. In addition, the AVEM does not issue prior authorization because of the pax age.

TK is not at fault here. They are only following the info in the system. It's the one who entered the info in TIMATIC at fault. Most probably one of the agencies in the Marrocan government.
flyerby is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2023, 3:20 pm
  #69  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: got2flyfar (YouTube)
Programs: SkyMiles Gold, FB Silver, TK Elite/*G, ITA Premium, Hilton Gold; BW Diamond Select; Radisson Premium
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by flyerby
Carriers receive entry requirements from the TIMATIC system. In the case of OP, pax over 55 traveling to Marroco with a Congo, Republic, passport do not require anything special. But the info on TIMATIC doesn't reflect this and do require AVEM (prior authorization) from any such pax regardless of age. In addition, the AVEM does not issue prior authorization because of the pax age.

TK is not at fault here. They are only following the info in the system. It's the one who entered the info in TIMATIC at fault. Most probably one of the agencies in the Marrocan government.
Somebody is responsible for the system and mostly legal diligence is not released by use of IT systems. It is how it is. The one making the decisions is the responsible one.
MitjaPod is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2023, 3:24 pm
  #70  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Programs: TK E+, RJ S, AZ E
Posts: 1,852
Originally Posted by MitjaPod
Somebody is responsible for the system and mostly legal diligence is not released by use of IT systems. It is how it is. The one making the decisions is the responsible one.
But based on the info provided in the system they made the correct decision. What do you suggest they were supposed to do differently?
flyerby is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2023, 3:26 pm
  #71  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: got2flyfar (YouTube)
Programs: SkyMiles Gold, FB Silver, TK Elite/*G, ITA Premium, Hilton Gold; BW Diamond Select; Radisson Premium
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by flyerby
But based on the info provided in the system they made the correct decision. What do you suggest they were supposed to do differently?
Only if the law says that the system is binding, then they are out of liability. Otherwise, it is still TK's liability to make the right decisions. If they use the system fine, but they are responsible if the system is flawed. This is how law works.
the810 likes this.
MitjaPod is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2023, 10:29 pm
  #72  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Programs: TK E+, RJ S, AZ E
Posts: 1,852
Originally Posted by MitjaPod
Only if the law says that the system is binding, then they are out of liability. Otherwise, it is still TK's liability to make the right decisions. If they use the system fine, but they are responsible if the system is flawed. This is how law works.
But Im not bounded to talk only about the law here in this forum. The law may very well put TK liable but it is still not their fault. No other carrier would have transferred the pax to Morocco. Whether OP have a legal case or not is one question. Whether TK was at fault here is another.
SK AAR and PVDtoDEL like this.
flyerby is offline  
Old Sep 18, 2023, 3:30 pm
  #73  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: VIE
Programs: SAS EBS / *A Silver, Hilton Diamond, Radisson VIP, IHG Platinum
Posts: 3,512
If I misunderstand entry rules (e.g. due to the use of an unreliable source of information) and arrive to the airport without proper documents, I will bear consequences in form of denied boarding.

If an airline misunderstands entry rules (for the same reason - using unreliable source of information), I don't see why they should not bear consequences, which in this case mean at least a payout of denied boarding compensation.

Airlines like to make people believe that they have a right to do anything, while pax don't have any rights at all, but that's simply not the case, at least not in Europe.
the810 is offline  
Old Sep 18, 2023, 3:34 pm
  #74  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: VIE
Programs: SAS EBS / *A Silver, Hilton Diamond, Radisson VIP, IHG Platinum
Posts: 3,512
Originally Posted by SK AAR
I don't agree. It is up to pax/it is the responsibility of pax to fulfill all immigration requirements; there is no obligation on the part of carriers to transport pax if there is (reasonable) risk that they may be denied entry. As you mention the carrier will be responsible to transport the pax back and may even be heavily fined for bringing pax without them fulfilling entry requirements. So if TK had reasonable doubt that the pax would not be allowed entry to Morocco TK did right in denying the pax to board the flight. I'm not qualified in Moroccan entry requirements, visa etc so no qualified opinion on whether TK had reasonable doubt, but if pax didn't bring proof that they were exempt from visa requirements I believe we are close to a situation where TK could have reasonable doubts. Also if TIMAC is not clear about this.
EU law (which is in this case also applicable in Switzerland) is absolutely clear on this. If passenger presents themselves for a check-in before the deadline and presents valid travel documents for their destination, the carrier has to accept them for travel or pay a compensation and provide rerouting.

There's not a word in the regulation about carrier's "reasonable doubts". It's up to the airline to do their job and understand the entry requirements. The only thing that matters is whether the passenger has or hasn't proper documents for the destination.
hugolover likes this.
the810 is offline  
Old Sep 18, 2023, 7:10 pm
  #75  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 765
Originally Posted by SK AAR
I don't agree. It is up to pax/it is the responsibility of pax to fulfill all immigration requirements; there is no obligation on the part of carriers to transport pax if there is (reasonable) risk that they may be denied entry. As you mention the carrier will be responsible to transport the pax back and may even be heavily fined for bringing pax without them fulfilling entry requirements. So if TK had reasonable doubt that the pax would not be allowed entry to Morocco TK did right in denying the pax to board the flight. I'm not qualified in Moroccan entry requirements, visa etc so no qualified opinion on whether TK had reasonable doubt, but if pax didn't bring proof that they were exempt from visa requirements I believe we are close to a situation where TK could have reasonable doubts. Also if TIMAC is not clear about this.
the pax brought all the necessary proof their passport which shows both their nationality and their date of birth, proving that their age is over 55.

Sure, TK relies on a system (TIMATIC) with incorrect data in it, but that doesnt get them off the hook, since they chose the system. If theyd chosen to rely on Wikipedia would you feel differently? TIMATIC has no more force in law than any other source they could choose.

TK can pursue their own claim with IATA for their costs incurred due to TIMATIC being wrong, if they want (but they probably cant as Im sure IATA has made them agree that TIMATIC is not guaranteed correct).

IMO the pax has a perfectly valid claim.
hugolover and the810 like this.
bobbytables 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.