Often1

No, the "nub" is how those rules are, in fact, enforced. The carrier's perception is irrelevant. To the extent that TK experiences a routine denial of entry in a similar fact pattern, it is entirely appropriate to deny boarding and it has no obligation to reroute.

The decision to deny boarding is either properly based on how the law is enforced or it is not.

eqeqeqx

"Entirely appropriate?" Hardly.

This is what the official faq says:

"If I am travelling to more than one Schengen country, at which embassy do I apply for a Schengen Visa?
If the applicant is planning to visit two or more Schengen countries, it is highly recommended to be applying for the visa in the embassy/consulate of the country you will be residing in for most of the traveling days, referred to as the main destination."

OP followed the correct, "highly recommended", procedure and was denied boarding due to the carrier's, TK, in all probability erroneous perception that he would be denied entry at OSL. TK only has "no obligation to reroute" as long as nobody brings them to court and force them to follow the rules.

OP followed the rules and guidelines provided by the Schengen agreement and it is despicable that he lost money and time due to TK not following the rules.

dozerman94

That's wrong. The official rules state otherwise:
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/wh...ow_to_apply_en

You need to get a visa from the country you intend to spend the most time in, your first port of entry is irrelevant. You are allowed have a complicated itinerary, with multiple tickets and airlines, that shouldn't be a problem.

OP did nothing wrong, TK is in the wrong here. That being said good luck getting compensation as it is a complicated situation. Filing complaints to national authorities might help.

trooper

This is my question too. Had the OP had ONE ticket SIN-OSL-CDG would that have made a difference?

Often1

Please read the language which you so painstakingly cut and pasted.

The question as to whether TK has improperly denied boarding is based on TK's interpretation of the law and its current experience. If its passengers are being returned to IST from various Schengen entry points because they do not hold visas from that entry point, then it is a matter of Schengen passport control officials not following Schengen rules. TK is simply the intermediary which is stuck with the passenger.

IAN-UK

The refusal by immigration officers at Oslo is perfectly legal - they after all have discretionary powers that supercede any visa, even if ostensibly valid.

The difficulty appears to be that Turkish Airlines is unable to second-guess how those officers will view Schengen visas not issued by Norwegian authorities, on a primary entry to Europe. Even though it seems the general regulations allow such an entry in certain situations, the Norwegian border police can appeal subsidiarity and trump those regulations.


So I get the idea that TK might well be acting from painful experience in terms of fines and/or having to return passengers they land at Oslo. They protect themselves by refusing to carry passengers with unvalidated Schengen visas nominating a country other than Norway.

Fair enough, in a way. But given this course of action puts the airline in a position somewhat at odds with guidelines attempting to navigate the minefield of international border regulations, it should surely offer assistance to the passengers caught up in this mess, to mitigate the impact of its actions.



In a sensible world, the airline should have caught this problem in Jakarta, at CGK, and offered the passenger a change of ticket direct to Paris.

East_and_West

No doubt that TΚ, or any airline for that matter, has the right (and even duty) to deny barding to passengers that may lack the required identification or paperwork/visa, as this may result in hefty fines and additional costs for them. And anyone who travels internationally should be aware that in most countries immigration officers reserve the right to deny entrance even to persons with the required documentation (e.g. ESTA in the US).

The issue here is that OP played it by the book and followed the official Schengen guidelines. So the ball is currently in TK's court: They need to justify why they thought OP was likely to be denied entry to Norway, despite having followed the rules, and this needs to be done using facts and evidence-backed arguments, and not simply by attempting to second-guess Norwegian immigration officers' decisions. Otherwise they are on the hook for compensation.

SK AAR

In case of 1 ticket to CDG I wouldn't expect any issues with TK - to TK it would appear as if the OP was indeed continuing to France. With the TK ticket to OSL only, it appeared to TK as if the OP was going to Norway on Schengen visa issued for/by France - regardless of any LLC tickets booked and hotel reservations in Paris made by the OP. As stated above, IMO the OP was looking for troubles - and I'm not surprised that boarding the OSL flight was denied - when traveling on a ticket to Norway with a Schengen visa issued in France (regardless if it is in fact easier to obtain Schengen visa in France than in Norway for Indonesians).

East_and_West

OP simply followed the regulations stated in the official website on how to apply for a Schengen visa:
OP could as well choose to spend some time in Norway before travelling to France, as long as OP could prove that he/she was to stay longer in France than in Norway, by presenting for example a valid onward ticket and a hotel booking. Which --if the amount of investment/cost is taken to be a proof of commitment to stick to one's plans-- is definitely higher than the last short-haul leg of multi-stop ticket from half the way around the world, which could very easily be skipped.

Not claiming that TK were on the wrong to deny boarding to OP, but rather that this decision cannot be justified on the sole basis of his/her visa having been issued by France (as it should have been).

hfly

Again, as I said and SK AAR confirms, had it all been on one ticket or PNR, there would not have been even a question. Schengen or no Schengen, Norway is TOUGH and has ALWAYS been especially with people coming in from Asia (Specifically South and South Eastern Asia), I have personally traveled with people who required and HAD Norwegian visas, very respectable people, and have seen them get hauled in and explained to them that they have a limited amount of stays that they can be in Norway, and that they cannot work, even when it was clear that they obviously have plenty of money and even own major companies/industries. This is NOT new, and it has been this way for as long as I have been going to Norway (over 30 years).

Now if the OP knew what to do, he could left the airport, have found a Notary, and made a declaration that he believed that he had the proper documentation for his trip and that should he be denied entry for whatever reason, that all subsequent fines and repatriation expenses would be the OP's responsibility.

eqeqeqx

Yes, the OP may have had to explain himself. And then the OP would probably, as the people you have travelled with, have been stamped in.

Leaving aside the imo very dubious suggestion that someone, unless he's a very very frequent guest in IST, happens to be departing at a time when a nearby notary office is still open, and has time to leave and come back, how do you know TK would care about his declaration? Sounds like they were not interested in listening to him much at all, but rather just denied boarding for their own, unknown reason. And in any case, why should he need to go to a notary for this at all? If TK had any interest in accepting a declaration from him, he could have made the declaration there and then, signed in front of TK staff.

ISTFlyer

For future travels, to the Schengen area with a previously unused visa;

- Don't travel TK unless you are entering the country where your visa was issued for. ( A friend explained that someone he knew had problems flying LAX-IST-GVA with TK on a ski trip to Southeastern France with a French visa ).

By the way, ( nothing to do with the OP's current situation ), however, I would like to mention that, Pegasus is less strict in these cases, they generally only look at the Schengen Visa expire date at the gate.

Worcester

Turkish official seem to take a hard line. We were once warned not to travel to Greece because we had KKTC stamps in our passports. Of course the Greek officials did not care.

ISTFlyer

When traveling to Greece with A3, the agents in IST checked all the pages of my passport if there was a TRNC stamp; however, I always use my ID to travel to TRNC so there was no problem for me. At that time I kindly asked the agent that if they check TRNC stamps for everyone. He replied that he is obligated to check Turkish and Azerbaijani passports.

Also, if you traveled with a UK passport ( assuming ), obviously you can enter the EU without any issue ( at least until Brexit ).

hfly

eq, I have found myself in situations in different parts of the world where airline check-in agents have misread Timatic or had wrong interpretations of what Timatic says, or even where Timatic was wrong. My way of dealing with this is to ask for a supervisor, and then if whatever the explanation is is not sufficient, I will there and then offer to write up a declaration, with witnesses attesting that I will cover all expenses if something goes wrong............That will not work with TK. But one would have a much better chance of getting them to accept it with a Notarized document...........Turkish officialdom loves them. And yes, it would also be unlikely that this person could navigate themselves to the nearest notary, nor that they would be able to communicate effectively, etc, but I am saying what the possibilities are/were.

If it were me, and I was from Indonesia, or the Philippines or Pakistan, or another dozen or so South and Southeast Asian countries, and I needed visas to most European countries, I would not mess around in this way. As I noted above the Norwegians have been picky for DECADES, and this is not a mystery to anyone. Flying randomly through what would look as a weird place (OSL) for no reason looks suspicious (if it were the other way around............traveling through FRA, AMS, CDG. for example would NOT raise as much suspicion as they are major hubs, OSL is certainly NOT), and not having all the flights under one PNR looks even more suspicious.

The Op is welcome to dispute this with TK for the next several years, good luck to him.