Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KLM Denies Boarding To Filipino WYD Participant  
User currently offlineAkiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 786 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 17647 times:

So this is making the rounds in local media here in the Philippines: Arjean Marie Belco, an indigenous student from Mindanao who was selected to go to Brazil for World Youth Day (and was traveling outside the Philippines for the first time), was denied boarding on a KLM flight to Amsterdam from Kuala Lumpur.

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/811...rld-youth-day-delegates-flight-hit

According to the organization sponsoring her trip, KLM was asking very probing questions (why is your passport so new, how much money do you have, etc.) and ultimately denied her boarding despite having full documentation that her expenses are covered for and she is going to Brazil for World Youth Day. In effect, the agent was acting like an immigration officer when he doesn't need to be. (Note that Filipinos don't need visas to go to Brazil.)

While I love KL and am very willing to fly with them, this does no good for their reputation here, and even I am at a loss as to how this could possibly happen. People are calling on the agent, a certain Mr. Shawa, to apologize to her, and some are even calling on Ms. Belco to file a complaint against KLM. Some are demanding a boycott.

(After the incident, she was eventually allowed to board after being stuck in Kuala Lumpur for two days, with her sponsor even having to fly all the way there from Manila just to plead with the airline to let her fly.)

[Edited 2013-07-23 06:39:08]

100 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3638 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 17554 times:

The problem is that if immigration at the far end say no, the airline has to repatriate the person at their expense, even worse in some cases the Country saying no might impose a fine.

If all the people who attend such events were honest there wouldn't be a problem, unfortunately however a few always use it as an opportunity to chnage their Country of residence. It has been reported in the UK media this week that there are still 70 participants from last years Olympic games outstaying their welcome, some having claimed asylum, but the majority have just disappeared.


User currently offlineAkiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 786 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 17501 times:

Here's the original Facebook note from Goodxorg explaining the incident.

http://www.facebook.com/Goodxorg/posts/527828993937098

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 1):
The problem is that if immigration at the far end say no, the airline has to repatriate the person at their expense, even worse in some cases the Country saying no might impose a fine.

I did mention that Filipinos don't need visas to enter Brazil, right?

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 1):
If all the people who attend such events were honest there wouldn't be a problem, unfortunately however a few always use it as an opportunity to chnage their Country of residence.

Filipinos would prefer to become TNTs (tago nang tago) in the wealthy countries of the West, particularly the U.S., Canada, Japan or Western Europe. Not a country like Brazil, which is nowhere near as wealthy as those favorite targets of overstaying Filipinos. (In fact, more Brazilians are moving here than there are Filipinos moving there.)

However, while the risk is understandable, I am at a loss as to how the airline would be the ultimate arbiter of one's intent to supposedly immigrate.

[Edited 2013-07-23 06:03:13]

User currently offlineSOBHI51 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3505 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 17470 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 1):
The problem is that if immigration at the far end say no, the airline has to repatriate the person at their expense, even worse in some cases the Country saying no might impose a fine.

Only if his documents are not correct. As Philippines citizens do not need a visa to enter Brazil then the airline bears zero responsability in this case. I am sure also that she did have a return ticket so again Kl will be zero out of pocket expenses.



I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
User currently offlineFURUREFA From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 805 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 17228 times:

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 3):
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 1):
The problem is that if immigration at the far end say no, the airline has to repatriate the person at their expense, even worse in some cases the Country saying no might impose a fine.

Only if his documents are not correct. As Philippines citizens do not need a visa to enter Brazil then the airline bears zero responsability in this case. I am sure also that she did have a return ticket so again Kl will be zero out of pocket expenses.

Some countries have other regulations in the place of or in addition to visa requirements (medical, financial, etc.). The issue is that often not only is the airline fined, but so is the individual agent in charge of documentation. In addition, most airlines have a desk that can help with documentation issues, and their word often supercedes the agent's.

In short, let's wait to chastize before we have all the facts.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20746 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 17201 times:

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 3):
Only if his documents are not correct. As Philippines citizens do not need a visa to enter Brazil then the airline bears zero responsability in this case.

That's the curious thing about it. It looks like the agent may have overreacted based upon the routing and how recently the ticket was purchased. But if documents were in order, the ticket was valid in KLM's system, and she posed no obvious risk to other passengers (like by being drunk), that shouldn't disqualify someone from boarding a flight. It isn't against the law to fly via a third country in order to save $1,000, as this passenger apparently did, according to what was published.

Airlines have to realize that in the world of internet sales, people will take advantage of deals originating in other countries, and carry those passengers even if the ticket looks "too cheap".



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 16821 times:

Quoting Akiestar (Reply 2):
I did mention that Filipinos don't need visas to enter Brazil, right?

You did. Common misconception though - not needing a visa does not equate to being assured of entry. There will likely be questions on the border, and the chance of being refused entry. It happens in lots of countries, on a regular basis, for passengers who don't require a visa prior to travel. Add to the mix recent reports that Brazil is experiencing high levels of illegal workers from Asia, and the fact that the airline is probably all too used to having to pick up the cost of those refused entry, and their position becomes a little more understandable. Doesn't mean that they're in the right here, but let's at least get the full context right.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinePlaneInsomniac From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 16596 times:

Quoting Akiestar (Reply 2):
I did mention that Filipinos don't need visas to enter Brazil, right?
Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 3):
As Philippines citizens do not need a visa to enter Brazil

The issue here seemed to be the transit at AMS, through which the girl was supposed to connect. This is mentioned in the original FB post, where they state that the KLM representative suggested they get in contact with the Dutch (and not the Brazilian) embassy.

In order to transit through AMS, the girl would have had to pass Dutch immigration, obviously. So if she had been denied there, KLM would have had a problem on their hands.

A few more thoughts about the Inquirer report:
- This is all based on a personal, one-sided FB post. Hardly a trustworthy source of information.
- Although the FB poster painstakingly enumerates the contents of the "folder of documents" the girl was bringing along, he does not mention any return ticket. Actually, the post explicitly only mentions a ticket TO Brazil, booked at short notice. Strange, to say the least.
- The charity funding the trip can hardly be considered a known quantity. The FB poster himself states that the trip the girl was to be sent on was a first-time "experiment" funded by a kind of crowd-sourcing effort.
- The FB poster states that the itinerary was changed on short notice to save money, although the trip had been planned for a long time. This appears strange, as the cheapest way to book a trip early on is by buying a non-refundable ticket. Especially when dates and destination are well-known, such as in the case of the World Youth Day.
- The FB poster chooses to personally and publicly name the KLM representative and paint him in a negative light ("he laughed at us"), and even goes as far as suggesting racist motives. Not normally the behaviour of somebody whos is interested in a factual discussion.

Frankly, the more I think about it, the unlikelier the FB story becomes. That an airline employee would arbitrarily deny somebody boarding "just because" although the passenger possessed the requisite documentation seems somewhat far-fetched. I wouldn't be surprised if there was more to the story.



Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
User currently offlineAkiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 786 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 16572 times:

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 7):
The issue here seemed to be the transit at AMS, through which the girl was supposed to connect. This is mentioned in the original FB post, where they state that the KLM representative suggested they get in contact with the Dutch (and not the Brazilian) embassy.

In order to transit through AMS, the girl would have had to pass Dutch immigration, obviously. So if she had been denied there, KLM would have had a problem on their hands.

The Netherlands (and heck, the entire Schengen area for non-Schengen to non-Schengen transit) has sterile transit, and transiting KUL-AMS-GIG, she wouldn't need to pass through Dutch immigration. So how did KLM come to the conclusion that Ms. Belco needs to deal with Dutch immigration if she's not entering the Schengen Area? (I would presume the airline would know how its own hub works, right?)

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 7):
This appears strange, as the cheapest way to book a trip early on is by buying a non-refundable ticket.

I paid €1250 to fly MNL-AMS-CDG-LIN-AMS-MNL on KLM in April for a conference, bought on the day of departure (3:30 pm to be exact). Buying cheap tickets does not always mean having to buy them months in advance.

[Edited 2013-07-23 08:03:54]

User currently offlineTYCOON From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 398 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 16533 times:

Connecting on a KLM flight from KL to Brazil, one doesn't need to go through passport control as they are not technically entering into the Schengen area. If the passenger were connecting to a Schengen country then they would.
Furthermore, my understanding is if a passenger is refused by immigration control it can only be the airline's responsibility if the airline was negligent (ie didn't check for valid VISA or if a one-way ticket didn't have proof of return travel or residency permit etc...).


User currently offlineairdfw From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 16502 times:

I think the agent is concerned not about the ultimate destination rather the stop over at Amsterdam. The problem is some people abuse this transit privileges and demand asylum. I think that is what the KL ticket agent was concerned about. Sad but that is what people from poor countries always face. The presumption of abuses like that and until you prove otherwise but new passport, youth traveling alone, no previous trips etc are making it tough for the agent and it is easy to deny the boarding.

User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3638 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 16502 times:

Quoting Akiestar (Reply 8):
The Netherlands (and heck, the entire Schengen area for non-Schengen to non-Schengen transit) has sterile transit, and transiting KUL-AMS-GIG, she wouldn't need to pass through Dutch immigration. So technically, the person in question does not need to deal with Dutch immigration.

If however Brazil say no, KLM have a problem with a passenger stuck air side at AMS.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 16458 times:

Quoting TYCOON (Reply 9):
Furthermore, my understanding is if a passenger is refused by immigration control it can only be the airline's responsibility if the airline was negligent (ie didn't check for valid VISA or if a one-way ticket didn't have proof of return travel or residency permit etc...).

No. That is generally true in the case of charges or fines, but the cost of repatriation and possibly also detention will generally always be borne by the airline regardless of the reason for refusal.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20746 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 16433 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 11):
If however Brazil say no, KLM have a problem with a passenger stuck air side at AMS.

If Brazil said no, she flies back to KUL, where she was admitted into Malaysia without problem.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 16410 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 13):
If Brazil said no, she flies back to KUL, where she was admitted into Malaysia without problem.

Completely correct.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25653 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15600 times:

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 7):
In order to transit through AMS, the girl would have had to pass Dutch immigration, obviously.

Not correct. She can go directly from gate to gate with no passport controls. She would only have to pass immigration controls if she was staying in the Netherlands or connecting to another Schengen country.


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7698 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15544 times:

Was there any doubt about the passport itself.

How recently was it issued.


User currently offlineSOBHI51 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3505 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15456 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FURUREFA (Reply 4):
In short, let's wait to chastize before we have all the facts

Sorry? i did not chastize nobody..

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 7):
In order to transit through AMS, the girl would have had to pass Dutch immigration,

Nope.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 16):
Was there any doubt about the passport itself.

How recently was it issued.

In one of my trips i flew with a new passport less than 24 hours old, no problems there.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 11):
If however Brazil say no, KLM have a problem with a passenger stuck air side at AMS.

How did you come up with such a conclusion?  



I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
User currently offlineMAS777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2936 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15417 times:

Just wondered if anyone thought that the KLM agent could have been concerned about the possibility of human trafficking... Thus wanted further clarification?

User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7698 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 15278 times:

I am flying with FR.

I know that the checking in process requires confirmation of passport details.

If you booked a flight quoting 1 passport number, and by the date of the flight, you had a new passport, would this be an issue.


User currently offlineandrefranca From Brazil, joined May 2011, 627 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 15047 times:

Quoting Akiestar (Reply 2):
Not a country like Brazil, which is nowhere near as wealthy as those favorite targets of overstaying Filipinos. (In fact, more Brazilians are moving here than there are Filipinos moving there.)

Not true at all, the per capita may tell we earn average 765 usd a month (Philippines is 390 usd a month) , I honestly can't imagine how people live with 765 usd here, most of people I know at least earn an average 1200 usd a month.

Secondly as a former airline employee (I'm not naming the airlines of course), during training Filipino nationality was always one of the nationalities taken as a "risky" nationality due to the high number of over-stayers, I'm not saying what the KLM officer did in KUL was right, but he may have his reasons! on my business trips to Panamá it's very common to see Filipino ship crew being detained by immigration and then boarded somewhere else.

Apart from that, Brazil is suffering immigration crises along with many other problems we are trying to solve, my city MAO legalized +-10 THOUSAND Haitians refugees on the past 2 years, without counting peruvians, bolivians, cubans to name a few, immigration is under pressure and maybe they refuse lots of KLM pax's coming in, who knows?

Naturally it's common for us to move to where it's cheaper to live, as I type my friend Eduardo may be sleeping in Manila, he told me with 40% of his monthly check he pays 3 months of his rent in a nice part of manila.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 6):
not needing a visa does not equate to being assured of entry. There will likely be questions on the border, and the chance of being refused entry. It happens in lots of countries, on a regular basis, for passengers who don't require a visa prior to travel.

  


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3638 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 15006 times:

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 17):
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 11):If however Brazil say no, KLM have a problem with a passenger stuck air side at AMS.
How did you come up with such a conclusion?

Easily, once the passenger commences their journey, if the destination country says "no entry" its down to KLM to sort it out..

Immigration at the destination have every right to say no, regardless of visas etc. If the KLM agent had reasonable grounds to be suspicious their bosses would expect them to either say no or seek guidance from their superiors


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1465 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 13542 times:

Typical a.net discussion: rule # 1, the airline or there staff is always right, the pax is always wrong.
rule # 2 if the pax is right rule # 1 still applies, but a.net needs more information..


How can an airline or there representative, having sold a ticket therefore entered a contract to fly said pax from A to B, deny boarding when all the papers are OK. That is simple breach of contract no excuse.

All this arguments above about the responsibility of the airline if you take them really seriously, the airline should stop flying passengers.

[Edited 2013-07-23 17:22:36]

User currently offlinePRFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 13517 times:

She is on her way to Brazil after KLM Malaysia intervened. It's in their FB page.

User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3394 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 12615 times:

Quoting FURUREFA (Reply 4):
Some countries have other regulations in the place of or in addition to visa requirements (medical, financial, etc.). The issue is that often not only is the airline fined, but so is the individual agent in charge of documentation. In addition, most airlines have a desk that can help with documentation issues, and their word often supercedes the agent's.

   At my current airline, the first time I check in a passenger who is later denied entry to their destination country, I automatically receive a three-day involuntary vacation (suspension). If it happens a second time, it's immediate termination. And this is actually a very lenient policy, as my previous airline would terminate employees on the spot for the first immigration fine. The fines can run anywhere between $1,000 to $12,000 per person, which can sometimes be up to half of the ticket agent's annual pay.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 6):
You did. Common misconception though - not needing a visa does not equate to being assured of entry. There will likely be questions on the border, and the chance of being refused entry. It happens in lots of countries, on a regular basis, for passengers who don't require a visa prior to travel. Add to the mix recent reports that Brazil is experiencing high levels of illegal workers from Asia, and the fact that the airline is probably all too used to having to pick up the cost of those refused entry, and their position becomes a little more understandable. Doesn't mean that they're in the right here, but let's at least get the full context right.

   The airline reserves the right to deny boarding to passengers who may technically meet all of the immigration requirements as outlined in TIMATIC, but who may otherwise create doubt as to their admissability. Considering the potential implications to his employment, I don't blame the KL agent for erring on the side of caution. Airlines simply do not like to take chances when it comes to immigration and the staff are all too aware of this.

[Edited 2013-07-23 18:40:57]

User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3394 posts, RR: 6
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 13106 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 22):
Typical a.net discussion: rule # 1, the airline or there staff is always right, the pax is always wrong.
rule # 2 if the pax is right rule # 1 still applies, but a.net needs more information..


How can an airline or there representative, having sold a ticket therefore entered a contract to fly said pax from A to B, deny boarding when all the papers are OK. That is simple breach of contract no excuse.

All this arguments above about the responsibility of the airline if you take them really seriously, the airline should stop flying passengers.

The passenger may qualify for an involuntary refund, but at the end of the day, the airline reserves the right to break off the contract and return any payment to any given passenger.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1465 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 12835 times:

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 24):
Quoting OB1504 (Reply 25):

You seem both of the opinion that an airline entering into a contract with a customer has no responsibility to fulfill this contract, I think you are in error there.

There must be a difference between being negligent and transporting a passenger clearly lacking the documents for example a visa to enter the country he is traveling to and a passenger having all the required documentation and being refused entry on a the whim of the immigration agent.

If you can show me any example of an airline being fined for transporting a passenger having all the required travel documentation and still being refused entry, you have an argument, up to then I take it as another a.net hype to keep the rule # 1.


User currently offlineMarcoPoloWorld From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 645 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 12708 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 22):
Typical a.net discussion: rule # 1, the airline or there staff is always right, the pax is always wrong.
rule # 2 if the pax is right rule # 1 still applies, but a.net needs more information..


How can an airline or there representative, having sold a ticket therefore entered a contract to fly said pax from A to B, deny boarding when all the papers are OK. That is simple breach of contract no excuse.

All this arguments above about the responsibility of the airline if you take them really seriously, the airline should stop flying passengers.

And just as if to prove your point, this guy posts the following just after your post:

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 24):
At my current airline, the first time I check in a passenger who is later denied entry to their destination country, I automatically receive a three-day involuntary vacation (suspension). If it happens a second time, it's immediate termination. And this is actually a very lenient policy, as my previous airline would terminate employees on the spot for the first immigration fine. The fines can run anywhere between $1,000 to $12,000 per person, which can sometimes be up to half of the ticket agent's annual pay.

First of all, then it would be impossible for any check-in agent to retain his position for any considerable length of time. That person is going to be checking in tens of thousands of people, and of course someone is going to be denied entry at their destination for some reason or another from time to time. Just to enter Canada, an American could be denied by simply having a marijuana possession conviction from the 70s from the shared criminal record database, from what I've read a couple of years ago.


User currently offlineFURUREFA From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 805 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 12491 times:

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 24):
At my current airline, the first time I check in a passenger who is later denied entry to their destination country, I automatically receive a three-day involuntary vacation (suspension). If it happens a second time, it's immediate termination. And this is actually a very lenient policy, as my previous airline would terminate employees on the spot for the first immigration fine. The fines can run anywhere between $1,000 to $12,000 per person, which can sometimes be up to half of the ticket agent's annual pay.

As someone who has worked for the #1 and #2 largest airlines in the world (hint), I can only emphasize the person liability that goes into international documentation. If only some of the posters here would acknowledge..


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1613 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 12460 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 22):
Typical a.net discussion: rule # 1, the airline or there staff is always right, the pax is always wrong.
rule # 2 if the pax is right rule # 1 still applies, but a.net needs more information..

Hilarious!

So she basically had to fly 3/4 way around the world in the opposite direction to get to Brazil? Is there no better direct routing? If I were an airline agent (see comment 1 above) I'd wonder what a passenger from the Philippines heading to Brazil is doing at AMS.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20746 posts, RR: 62
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 12350 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 29):
So she basically had to fly 3/4 way around the world in the opposite direction to get to Brazil? Is there no better direct routing?

Check the Great Circle Mapper. Via the Pacific isn't shorter over traditional airline routes.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 29):
I'd wonder what a passenger from the Philippines heading to Brazil is doing at AMS.

She was denied boarding at KUL.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAkiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 786 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 12326 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 29):
So she basically had to fly 3/4 way around the world in the opposite direction to get to Brazil? Is there no better direct routing? If I were an airline agent (see comment 1 above) I'd wonder what a passenger from the Philippines heading to Brazil is doing at AMS.

Yes. Flying in the opposite direction, either she will have two stops, or worse, she will transit the United States. One-stop itineraries from Southeast Asia to South America are almost always westbound through the Middle East or Europe.


User currently offlineApprentice From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11809 times:

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 7):

How about been profiled by Schengen zone airline' clerk due country of origin even when fliying as a/c mechanic and listed in General Declaration?
In my case, just a passport country change was necessary, now nobody care who, where, when. I wonder..



A "NO" is a positive answer. My Tutor
User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3394 posts, RR: 6
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 11387 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 26):
You seem both of the opinion that an airline entering into a contract with a customer has no responsibility to fulfill this contract, I think you are in error there.

I am, because the airline does not have such a responsibility. If the airline fails to live up to its end of the bargain, it gives the passenger their money back and tells them to have a nice day.

Quoting MarcoPoloWorld (Reply 27):
First of all, then it would be impossible for any check-in agent to retain his position for any considerable length of time. That person is going to be checking in tens of thousands of people, and of course someone is going to be denied entry at their destination for some reason or another from time to time. Just to enter Canada, an American could be denied by simply having a marijuana possession conviction from the 70s from the shared criminal record database, from what I've read a couple of years ago.

The agent has no way of knowing that and would not be held liable for the passenger's failure to disclose. However, if the agent has an inkling that the passenger may be denied entry to the destination country, he or she must follow up on that or risk unemployment.


User currently offlineStratofish From Germany, joined Sep 2001, 1053 posts, RR: 5
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9203 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 22):
Typical a.net discussion: rule # 1, the airline or there staff is always right, the pax is always wrong.
rule # 2 if the pax is right rule # 1 still applies, but a.net needs more information..
Oh boy, what a great contribution to the forum... If you cannot accept that people here actually work in the industry and try to explain what the average flier won't understand, then what are you seeking from these forums?

How can an airline or there representative, having sold a ticket therefore entered a contract to fly said pax from A to B, deny boarding when all the papers are OK. That is simple breach of contract no excuse.

Boarding can be denied on grounds of said contract.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 24):
The airline reserves the right to deny boarding to passengers who may technically meet all of the immigration requirements as outlined in TIMATIC, but who may otherwise create doubt as to their admissability. Considering the potential implications to his employment, I don't blame the KL agent for erring on the side of caution. Airlines simply do not like to take chances when it comes to immigration and the staff are all too aware of this.

Spot on!
Furthermore KL probably employs outsourced agents at KUL who just fulfill the handling orders they got from AMS.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 26):
You seem both of the opinion that an airline entering into a contract with a customer has no responsibility to fulfill this contract, I think you are in error there.

I'm sorry, but you think wrong.

It was an unfortunate incident for both sides, sure. But simply blaming one airline or one employee fails short of the real problem. As long as states outsource their problems to the airlines, incidents like the one described here not only can but DO happen DAILY at almost every airline. Sad but true.



The Metro might be the Sub(optimal)way
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1465 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9115 times:

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 33):
I am, because the airline does not have such a responsibility. If the airline fails to live up to its end of the bargain, it gives the passenger their money back and tells them to have a nice day.


If airlines could just give the money back why are they offering compensation and a new flight when overbooking, they could just give the money back. Or if you want to fill the plane with higher paying customers you throw out all the cheap passengers having booked there flight early.
I think you should come down from your airline has no responsibility to fulfill a contract, there has been hefty compensations payed out for such at least here in Europe.
One business men hired a private jet instead and send, I think it was SAS, the bill and won the case when the airline did not want to pay up.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 33):
The agent has no way of knowing that and would not be held liable for the passenger's failure to disclose. However, if the agent has an inkling that the passenger may be denied entry to the destination country, he or she must follow up on that or risk unemployment.

Still in the pax is always wrong mode. We are talking here about denying a pax with all traveling documents OK from boarding, there is no right for the airline or there staff to arbitrarily deny a passenger boarding without a valid reason.
And a hunch or a itchy nose is no valid reason.

There still has somebody to mention a case were an airline has been fined for transporting a pax with all travel documents in order because the immigration agent denied entry for no reason and a reason the airline could not have known.

There are no special "aviation rules" allowing airlines to breach contracts without consequences.


User currently offline777klm From China, joined Apr 2005, 531 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 9057 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 35):
If airlines could just give the money back why are they offering compensation and a new flight when overbooking, they could just give the money back. Or if you want to fill the plane with higher paying customers you throw out all the cheap passengers having booked there flight early.
I think you should come down from your airline has no responsibility to fulfill a contract, there has been hefty compensations payed out for such at least here in Europe.
One business men hired a private jet instead and send, I think it was SAS, the bill and won the case when the airline did not want to pay up.

Have a look at the KLM General Conditions of Carriage and then Article 9 (section k) in particular:

The Passenger does not appear to be in possession of valid travel documents, may seek or has sought to illegally enter a country through which he may be in transit , or for which he does not have a valid entry document, has destroyed travel documents during the flight, has refused to allow copies thereof to be made and kept by the Carrier, or the Passenger’s travel documents have expired, are incomplete in light of the regulations in force, or appear to be fraudulent or otherwise suspicious (for example: identity theft, forgery or counterfeiting of documents).

Perhaps unnecessary to mention that the passenger in the present case did agree with these general conditions.

Refusing someone because an airline wants to carry higher paying customers instead is obviously not part of these General Conditions and will indeed lead to compensation under EU law.

Edited for spelling

[Edited 2013-07-24 02:25:34]


Next flight: AMS-PEK
User currently offlinefn1001 From Moldova, joined Sep 2008, 234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8594 times:

From my personal experiences during the nineties and the early noughties, I fully agree with the “personal, one-sided FB post”, which I would not call being a “hardly a trustworthy source of information”.

As a holder of a non-EU-Passport, but frequently travelling at that time into the EU and Schengen Area, I can tell many stories about the humiliating treatment of local employees of big european carriers. They did not hesitate to give me the feeling that they were superior due to the fact that I was only a humble customer, suspected to be a potentially illegal immigrant to the EU, but they made it to be employed by a western company. Sometimes they were worse than the romanian or hungarian border police at that time, who meanwhile became really polite and friendly.



Mai bine să-ţi fie rău decît să-ţi pară rău.
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1465 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8321 times:

Quoting 777klm (Reply 36):
The Passenger does not appear to be in possession of valid travel documents, may seek or has sought to illegally enter a country through which he may be in transit , or for which he does not have a valid entry document, has destroyed travel documents during the flight, has refused to allow copies thereof to be made and kept by the Carrier, or the Passenger’s travel documents have expired, are incomplete in light of the regulations in force, or appear to be fraudulent or otherwise suspicious (for example: identity theft, forgery or counterfeiting of documents).

It is very clear that you do not read what others are writing.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A PAX HAVING ALL THE RIGHT TRAVELING DOCUMENTS, so what you are referring to DOES NOT APPLY.

People here seem to think airlines can just deny boarding and pay the money back if they want to.

I think that in this case the airline or the airline agent was pissed because of the low price ticket.


User currently offlineC010T3 From Brazil, joined Jul 2006, 3713 posts, RR: 19
Reply 39, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8238 times:

Immigration in Brazil is already lax as it is. During WYD, it's even more so. She would have no problems entering the country. Seriously, a Spaniard would have more problems than a Filipino.

User currently offlineMillwallSean From Singapore, joined Apr 2008, 1270 posts, RR: 6
Reply 40, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7863 times:

Mjoelnir is right. As long as she has the valid documents the person denying her is in breach of contract.

There are no special laws for airline contracts and in this case she obviously has the right documents. She has been sent and picked by the church and they have sorted her documents and ticket.
Knowing the airlines, knowing what poor people of Mindanao looks like, I am not surprised that this has happened. The KL agent in KUL has seen a girl that's never ever traveled before, the girl looks poor, dress like a poor girl and acts like she never left the kampong.
The agent is naturally suspicious. When they realise she is Filippina too, a nation of maids and other suspect trades (in Malaysia) all alarm bells were ringing.
Instead of following protocol she assumes and thus the boarding gets denied. Add on that World church days isn't exactly a great thing among the mainly muslim staff at KUL airport. Maybe understandable yet a wrong decision.

Personally I feel for this poor girl thats been through alot. I hope her faith helps her to forgive her accusers and that KL management deals with this. Stand the person who did this down and educate them, a loss of face ie power taken away temporary is a great way to remind staff in Asia not to overstep their position.
This is also something I see happening here. Because when dutch staff becomes aware of this they will quell this fire as soon as possible.

There is no way KL management will allow the European press to run "poor catholic girls dream trip ruined by KL" story's.
That would hurt KL enormously and they will ensure they are on top of this situation very fast and the only way to solve that is to get the girl to Brazil asap and to accept blame and put it solely on the hands of a mistake by an individual in Malaysia.
Someone is going to get spanked hard for this in KUL...



No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
User currently offline777klm From China, joined Apr 2005, 531 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7297 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 38):
It is very clear that you do not read what others are writing.

No worries, I did read the other posts.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 38):
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A PAX HAVING ALL THE RIGHT TRAVELING DOCUMENTS, so what you are referring to DOES NOT APPLY.

No need to shout. The only thing I'm saying is that if an airline reasonably doubts a passenger's reasons for travel (for example may seek to illegally enter a country through which he be in transit ), the airline can refuse carriage to that passenger. I just can't believe any airline would refuse carriage simply because they don't like a passenger's face.

I suspect they needed to further examine the purpose of this passenger's trip and allowed her on a later flight after all.

Still, we're discussing a story of which we don't know the details of.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 38):
I think that in this case the airline or the airline agent was pissed because of the low price ticket.

That's just silly. Why would an airline sell a ticket and then be pissed because of the low price ticket? The airline agent doesn't have any reason to be pissed either as he/she was not disadvantaged by this passenger.



Next flight: AMS-PEK
User currently offlineApprentice From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6832 times:

Quoting Stratofish (Reply 34):
] As long as states outsource their problems to the airlines, ...

Airlines will outsorce their to custommers ?



A "NO" is a positive answer. My Tutor
User currently offlineAA94 From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 603 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6716 times:

KLM has an interesting tool on their website where you are able to input your nationality, embarkation point, transfer point, and destination point, and you will be advised on what requirements you must satisfy in order to travel.

For reference, here is the relevant information:

Quote:


Visa Information - Transit
Netherlands (NL)


Visa required, except for Holders of onward tickets transiting
Transit Without Visa (TWOV).

Transit Without Visa (TWOV): Passing through an international
transit area of the airport in order to board a connecting (or
to proceed by the same) flight, without entering the country
(i.e. clearing immigration).

Unless stated otherwise, passengers wishing to TWOV must:
- be en-route to a third country (e.g. itinerary TYO-LON-TYO
is not considered TWOV);

- prove that they will continue their journey within the
prescribed period (e.g. hold onward tickets);

- have documents required for entry into the country of
destination and for transit through countries en-route;

- remain in the transit area (airside) or on the aircraft.

Visa Information - Destination
Brazil (BR)



Passport required.
- Passport and/or passport replacing documents must be valid
for the period of intended stay.

Visa required, except for a max. stay of 90 days:
- for holders of normal, emergency or temporary passports
issued to nationals of Philippines;

Additional Information:

- Visas issued to nationals of Philippines are valid for first
entry within 90 days, and the validity of the visa begins
on the day of the first entry in Brazil.

- Extension of stay possible for those who are visa exempt.

- Visitors are required to hold proof of sufficient funds to
cover their stay and documents required for their next
destination.

- Passengers registered in passport of companion must hold an
individual visa.

Warning:
- Visitors not holding return/onward ticket could be refused
entry.

- Exempt are holders of a "VIPER" visa issued by Brazil.



[Edited 2013-07-24 06:22:52]


Choose a challenge over competence / Eleanor Roosevelt
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 44, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6669 times:

Quoting AA94 (Reply 43):
I know we've basically addressed this already, but based on the information we have, it seems like she met the requirements for transit in the Netherlands and admittance to Brazil. That doesn't necessarily mean a customs officer in Brazil can't deny her entry, but it appears that all her documents were in order to travel.

Advice on basic requirements like that can only take you so far. What advice like that does not give you is chapter and verse on immigration laws/rules and how they will be considered by the immigration officer. Again, not needing a visa and having a valid passport does not equate to being assured of entry. I can't speak on the finer points of immigration law in Brazil, but in general that is an important principle that applies in many countries around the world. Airlines, rightly or wrongly, are often wary. This is because, as discussed earlier, they are still usually liable for repatriation costs irrespective of whether correct documentation was held.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAA94 From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 603 posts, RR: 2
Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6642 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 38):
I think that in this case the airline or the airline agent was pissed because of the low price ticket.

I think you're incorrect.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 35):
Still in the pax is always wrong mode. We are talking here about denying a pax with all traveling documents OK from boarding, there is no right for the airline or there staff to arbitrarily deny a passenger boarding without a valid reason.
And a hunch or a itchy nose is no valid reason.

When an agent's job, presumably their livelihood and sole source of income (assuming they don't have other jobs stashed away somewhere), is on the line, intuition definitely comes into play.

I just returned from Frankfurt two days ago. Naturally, I had all necessary travel documents. At check-in, I was asked a series of security questions about my luggage -- "Did you pack this bag yourself?" "Did anyone give you anything to take with you?" "What did you purchase at the airport?"

Even though I satisfy the requirements to fly and have purchased a ticket (entered into the contract), if I don't answer those questions satisfactorily, I'm a candidate for denied check-in. It's as simple as that.



Choose a challenge over competence / Eleanor Roosevelt
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6629 times:

Quoting AA94 (Reply 45):
When an agent's job, presumably their livelihood and sole source of income (assuming they don't have other jobs stashed away somewhere), is on the line, intuition definitely comes into play.

I would find it fairly hard to believe that an agent would be canned for allowing a correctly-documented passenger to travel, even if they were refused entry on arrival at destination. If said agent allowed someone to fly without the requisite visa or valid passport, then I could absolutely see that being career-limiting.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2095 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6547 times:

Quoting 777klm (Reply 41):
I just can't believe any airline would refuse carriage simply because they don't like a passenger's face.

It is the most likely reason. Malays are known to look down on their neighbors (with the exception of Singaporeans). Long story, twenty years back America told Malaysia it will be a developed nation by 2020, so they are superior to others and they have to conduct themselves in a superior manner. Now they are in a worst state than most of their neighbors economically, but old habits die hard.

If Filipinos don't need visa to Brazil, how can KLM be fined. Even if she is denied entry in to Brazil, and she has round trip ticket, what is KLMs problem. Even if she didn't have return ticket repatriation is Philippines flag carriers responsibility not KLM's.


User currently offlinediesel33 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 304 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6485 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 46):
I would find it fairly hard to believe that an agent would be canned for allowing a correctly-documented passenger to travel, even if they were refused entry on arrival at destination. If said agent allowed someone to fly without the requisite visa or valid passport, then I could absolutely see that being career-limiting.

I work for an airline (a large international one) and I agree.


User currently offlineAkiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 786 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6398 times:

I'm not sure if only people in the Philippines can see this, but KLM has issued a response: http://www.facebook.com/KLM/posts/10151518209660773.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 47):
Even if she didn't have return ticket repatriation is Philippines flag carriers responsibility not KLM's.

But PR doesn't fly to Brazil...yet. 

However, I thought that if someone was refused entry, it would be the carrying airline that bears the responsibility of bringing her back to the point of origin, which in this case is KUL?

(Also, the Philippine government's policy on repatriation is that repatriation is effected only in times of emergency. So far, the last mass repatriation of overseas Filipinos was with Syria last year.)

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 47):
Malays are known to look down on their neighbors (with the exception of Singaporeans)

Could politics be involved, given what happened in Sabah earlier this year?

[Edited 2013-07-24 08:19:00]

User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 50, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6330 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 47):
If Filipinos don't need visa to Brazil, how can KLM be fined. Even if she is denied entry in to Brazil, and she has round trip ticket, what is KLMs problem. Even if she didn't have return ticket repatriation is Philippines flag carriers responsibility not KLM's.

It's not a question of being fined. That wouldn't happen if the passenger was correctly-documented. What would happen though, is if she was refused entry for any reason then the airline who brought her there (in this case) would be required to take her back again, at their cost. Most countries have this obligation on airlines. Some airlines may then try to recoup costs back from the passenger concerned, but that becomes an issue solely between the passenger and the company, and makes no difference to the airlines obligation to remove the passenger.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAyostoLeon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 51, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6300 times:

Quoting AA94 (Reply 43):

Congratulations on doing some basic research to provide KLM's travel advice and information on whybthey may deny boarding.

I don't accept that the airlines will be automaticallly fined if they can show that they took reasonable steps to follow procedures and regulations. An airline has no way of knowing that a border protection agent woke up with a hangover and decides to doubt someone's intentions. If airlines actually sack somebody, that is likely because procedures had not been followed. If an agent correctly documents that he/she followed correct procedure then, depending on whether they live in a country with laws to protect against unfair dismissal, he/ she would have a pretty solid case against the employer.

Quoting Akiestar (Reply 49):

Why would it be PR's responsibility to repatriate if they were not the carrier that carried the passenger? The airline that fails to ensure that a passenger has valid travel documents before allowing the passenger to board is liable for any fines and costs of repatriation, although they may reclaim those costs from the passenger.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 52, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6197 times:

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 51):
I don't accept that the airlines will be automaticallly fined if they can show that they took reasonable steps to follow procedures and regulations

They wouldn't be, providing all required documents are in order. Again, they would however be still responsible for the removal of the passenger regardless of the reason of refusal of entry.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAyostoLeon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 53, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6154 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 52):

That clears up the issue of fines and as far as repatriation is concerned, costs can be attempted to be recovered from the passenger, which is only fair and reasonable. The airlines should not be held responsible for someone else's omissions or for the unpredictable behaviour of border protection personnel. The fact that despite checking all documentation the airlines may still be liable does, however, place an unreasonable burden on the airlines.

[Edited 2013-07-24 08:49:24]

User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 54, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6138 times:

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 53):
The fact that despite checking all documation the airlines may still be liable does, however, place an unreasonable burden on the airlines.

On the other hand, paying large sums of money to airlines to repatriate passengers found to be inadmissable, merely for the honour of enforcing your national laws, could be said to be an unreasonable burden on the taxpayers of a country.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2095 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6108 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 50):
if she was refused entry for any reason then the airline who brought her there (in this case) would be required to take her back again, at their cost.

If passenger paid for round trip ticket in advance, there is literally no cost to KLM other than rebooking her on an earlier flight. Most such trips are three to five day long any way. This is definitely an over reaching airline agent.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20746 posts, RR: 62
Reply 56, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6113 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 54):
merely for the honour of enforcing your national laws, could be said to be an unreasonable burden on the taxpayers of a country.

I'm going to disagree with this for the moment. I believe it's cheaper to turn someone around immediately than to fish them out of the population once you've let them pass. If a country has decided to reject someone who has met all of the documentation requirements, then the onus should be on the taxpayer's dime to send them back.

Where it gets dicey is when criminal records are shared. Recently, one of my colleagues was rejected at the Canadian border. The office gossip was that it was due to a long ago conviction for a light drug arrest. Being on company business, he probably had a full-fare ticket and could return immediately (we usually fly on B-fares). Others may not be so lucky. What do you do with them? The airline certainly wouldn't have had known about the arrest.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAyostoLeon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 57, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6091 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 54):

An inescapable burden of any citizens in any country is that they ultimately pay for whatever policies are in place, either directly or indirectly.

If the airlines followed prescribed procedures and due to the vagaries of an individual at a check point someone is not admitted, why should the airline pay? I have no objection to people being punished for doing something wrong or failing to do the right thing, but to hold them responsible even when they do follow prescribed procedure, and can show that they did, is unjust.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4881 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6098 times:

Quoting 777klm (Reply 36):

The Passenger does not appear to be in possession of valid travel documents

She did appear to be in possession of valid travel documents.

Quoting 777klm (Reply 36):
may seek or has sought to illegally enter a country through which he may be in transit

She did not enter the country illegally nor sought to transit there illegally. Divining thoughts and intentions is unacceptable at best.

Quoting 777klm (Reply 36):
has destroyed travel documents during the flight, has refused to allow copies thereof to be made and kept by the Carrier

She has done neither of these.

Quoting 777klm (Reply 36):
or the Passenger’s travel documents have expired, are incomplete in light of the regulations in force, or appear to be fraudulent or otherwise suspicious (for example: identity theft, forgery or counterfeiting of documents).

None of these appeared to be the case.

Quoting 777klm (Reply 36):

Perhaps unnecessary to mention that the passenger in the present case did agree with these general conditions.

She most certainly did not satisfy any of those points. It is racial profiling, pure and simple.


Quoting 777klm (Reply 41):
The only thing I'm saying is that if an airline reasonably doubts a passenger's reasons for travel (for example may seek to illegally enter a country through which he be in transit ), the airline can refuse carriage to that passenger.

Her reasons for travel has been reasonably established.

Quoting 777klm (Reply 41):
I just can't believe any airline would refuse carriage simply because they don't like a passenger's face.

And that's precisely what the agent just did.

Quoting 777klm (Reply 41):
Still, we're discussing a story of which we don't know the details of.

Yet you were quick to justify the agent's action.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 33):
I am, because the airline does not have such a responsibility. If the airline fails to live up to its end of the bargain, it gives the passenger their money back and tells them to have a nice day.

And opens itself to a lawsuit and bad PR.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 33):
However, if the agent has an inkling that the passenger may be denied entry to the destination country, he or she must follow up on that or risk unemployment.
Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 53):
The fact that despite checking all documation the airlines may still be liable does, however, place an unreasonable burden on the airlines.

Clearly, the agent did not do a follow-up and simply denied the passenger. As with the airline, the risk for the agent comes with the territory. It's on them if they deem it worth the hassle and bad publicity.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 53):
costs can be attempted to be recovered from the passenger, which is only fair and reasonable.

Or in this case, her sponsors.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 59, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6062 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 56):
I believe it's cheaper to turn someone around immediately than to fish them out of the population once you've let them pass.

I certainly won't argue on that point - you're completely right there.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 56):
If a country has decided to reject someone who has met all of the documentation requirements, then the onus should be on the taxpayer's dime to send them back.

That's where I don't agree. It's part of the deal, airlines are aware of their responsibilities and risks prior to entering the market. I don't think the taxpayers should have to pay for a foreign national trying to chance their arm and gain entry with the intention of taking illegal employment, for example. As mentioned, airlines can always try to reclaim costs from a passenger afterwards, but in terms of enforcing laws and effecting swift removals it's pretty vital to have the legal power to direct an airline to take someone back who they've carried.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAyostoLeon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 60, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6002 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 59):

I don't think that it is "vital" to shift the burden but it clearly is expedient. It is one thing to impose a reasonable burden like checking that a passenger has valid travel documents. It is quite another to say that the airline should accept the costs involved in someone else's decision to admit a person who has those documents.

While it is true that the airline can seek to recover costs from a passenger, the same is true of a State. Indeed many countries make it clear in their legislation that people who are detained and deported can be held liable for refunding the costs. But of course it is simpler and more expedient to shift the burden elsewhere. The reason is probably to do with the fact that a would-be illegal immigrant would lack the means to repay, so the airlines pay the cost rather than the State that made an arbitrary decision.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20746 posts, RR: 62
Reply 61, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5991 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 59):
I don't think the taxpayers should have to pay for a foreign national trying to chance their arm and gain entry with the intention of taking illegal employment, for example.

Here's something to think about. When I visit a country, I become a taxpayer by way of the departure/immigration/what-have-you taxes paid. Travelers pay in huge sums to host countries at the border for the privilege of conducting business or for tourism.

The way I look at it is that I believe nearly every country now requires either an onward or round-trip ticket as a condition of passing through immigration. Many of those tickets require change fees, or a higher cost to use immediately, if one is rejected at the border and needs to use that ticket now. Why shouldn't the target country use a portion of the taxes it's collected from travelers to pay the differential in airfare? (Now I realize that's clearly an unworkable solution, since an airline has little pull to get a country to change its laws, but I'll put it out there anyway since it makes the point of reasonable use of taxes collected.)

I don't see why I should pay for higher airline fares to offset the cost of the airline to repatriate undesirables, when I've already paid what is essentially a border tax to enable the enforcement of sovereign borders.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 62, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5884 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 61):
Here's something to think about. When I visit a country, I become a taxpayer by way of the departure/immigration/what-have-you taxes paid. Travelers pay in huge sums to host countries at the border for the privilege of conducting business or for tourism.

It's something to think about. In the case of the UK though, there are no taxes collected on arrival, and non-EU nationals can often claim VAT back on goods purchased. Besides supporting the tourism industry generally, they don't really contribute much, if any, actual taxes. Of course, visa nationals do pay fees for visas. I can't say the same for other countries, who I realise may claim taxes on arrival or departure for example.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 60):
I don't think that it is "vital" to shift the burden but it clearly is expedient.

I guess it depends what importance you place on that expediency. It saves a lot of time and money for the country. I think it's pretty important.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 60):
It is quite another to say that the airline should accept the costs involved in someone else's decision to admit a person who has those documents.

Well, they don't get fined at least!    I hear what you're saying, and you're right that it is easier and simpler to shift the burden to airlines. I myself think that's acceptable, despite being a supporter of the aviation industry in general. I realise that some may think differently though, and that's fair enough.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAyostoLeon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 63, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5849 times:

@ RussianJet "I realise that some may think differently though, and that's fair enough."

Glad to hear it as that is the way it should be. Exchange of ideas without acrimony. It may not mean a lot but welcome to my respected members list.  


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20746 posts, RR: 62
Reply 64, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5838 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 62):
In the case of the UK though, there are no taxes collected on arrival, and non-EU nationals can often claim VAT back on goods purchased. Besides supporting the tourism industry generally, they don't really contribute much, if any, actual taxes.

True, but the UK has a high departure tax. To fly on a typical journey in Coach from the UK to the US, £106.75 in duty and service charges are collected. The US splits a much smaller amount collected into arrival, departure, customs, immigration, security and agricultural fees and taxes.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 65, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5788 times:

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 63):
Glad to hear it as that is the way it should be. Exchange of ideas without acrimony. It may not mean a lot but welcome to my respected members list.

Thank you very much - highly appreciated. I fully agree that there is no need for acrimony simply because opinions differ.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 64):
True, but the UK has a high departure tax. To fly on a typical journey in Coach from the UK to the US, £106.75 in duty and service charges are collected. The US splits a much smaller amount collected into arrival, departure, customs, immigration, security and agricultural fees and taxes.

Ah, well yes - that's true. But I consider aviation taxes as quite distinct from immigration-related charges, in that we all pay them when flying to or from the UK, regardless of nationality or status. But yes, good point.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offline777klm From China, joined Apr 2005, 531 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5715 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 58):
Yet you were quick to justify the agent's action.

I most certainly did not. If my posts made you feel otherwise, I'm sorry for that. I reacted to a quote describing a general situation, not this one in particular. I quoted a part of the KLM general conditions for carriage (again describing a situation in general), so don't consider those words to be my opinion. Perhaps I could have been more clear.

Back on topic, is there more clear about the situation besides that the girl has made it to Brazil in the end? Maybe in the Filipino news?



Next flight: AMS-PEK
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5719 times:

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 7):
In order to transit through AMS, the girl would have had to pass Dutch immigration, obviously. So if she had been denied there, KLM would have had a problem on their hands.
Quoting airdfw (Reply 10):
I think the agent is concerned not about the ultimate destination rather the stop over at Amsterdam. The problem is some people abuse this transit privileges and demand asylum. I think that is what the KL ticket agent was concerned about

As others have pointed out, this is factually incorrect -- no visa required for sterile area connections. It is amazing though how many people confidently make these kinds of authoritative statements without bothering to check the facts.

Quoting TYCOON (Reply 9):
Furthermore, my understanding is if a passenger is refused by immigration control it can only be the airline's responsibility if the airline was negligent (ie didn't check for valid VISA or if a one-way ticket didn't have proof of return travel or residency permit etc...).

Exactly. Airline staff are not immigration officers. They check to see if the *required docs* are in order. If they are, they have done their job. Anything else is over-reach.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 11):
If however Brazil say no, KLM have a problem with a passenger stuck air side at AMS.

Huh??? Not sure I get what you are trying to say here.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 12):
No. That is generally true in the case of charges or fines, but the cost of repatriation and possibly also detention will generally always be borne by the airline regardless of the reason for refusal.
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 21):
Easily, once the passenger commences their journey, if the destination country says "no entry" its down to KLM to sort it out..

Need a source for this where it says the airline is responsible even if the docs were in order.

Quoting MAS777 (Reply 18):
Just wondered if anyone thought that the KLM agent could have been concerned about the possibility of human trafficking... Thus wanted further clarification?
Quoting OB1504 (Reply 24):
The airline reserves the right to deny boarding to passengers who may technically meet all of the immigration requirements as outlined in TIMATIC, but who may otherwise create doubt as to their admissability.

This is immigration's job, not the airline employees, unless there were other reasons to be suspicious in which case the airline staff needs to involve the necessary authorities and not make an arbitrary decision on their own.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 22):
How can an airline or there representative, having sold a ticket therefore entered a contract to fly said pax from A to B, deny boarding when all the papers are OK. That is simple breach of contract no excuse.

Fully agree.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 24):
At my current airline, the first time I check in a passenger who is later denied entry to their destination country, I automatically receive a three-day involuntary vacation (suspension). If it happens a second time, it's immediate termination.

I call BS on this. I worked for a major int'l carrier for years and there was no such rule. You must work for some oddball airline.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 26):
If you can show me any example of an airline being fined for transporting a passenger having all the required travel documentation and still being refused entry, you have an argument, up to then I take it as another a.net hype to keep the rule # 1.

Fully agree.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 29):
So she basically had to fly 3/4 way around the world in the opposite direction to get to Brazil? Is there no better direct routing? If I were an airline agent (see comment 1 above) I'd wonder what a passenger from the Philippines heading to Brazil is doing at AMS.

Why did they sell her the ticket then? It is none of the business of the airline what routing she chooses unless there is valid reason to doubt the authenticity of her docs, in which case again they need to involve the necessary authorities and not make arbitrary decisions on their own.

Quoting 777klm (Reply 36):
The Passenger does not appear to be in possession of valid travel documents, may seek or has sought to illegally enter a country through which he may be in transit , or for which he does not have a valid entry document, has destroyed travel documents during the flight, has refused to allow copies thereof to be made and kept by the Carrier, or the Passenger’s travel documents have expired, are incomplete in light of the regulations in force, or appear to be fraudulent or otherwise suspicious (for example: identity theft, forgery or counterfeiting of documents).

This clause just proves that the agent was in the wrong, as from everything we have seen and read, the passengers did not violate any of these conditions.

Quoting AA94 (Reply 45):
I just returned from Frankfurt two days ago. Naturally, I had all necessary travel documents. At check-in, I was asked a series of security questions about my luggage -- "Did you pack this bag yourself?" "Did anyone give you anything to take with you?" "What did you purchase at the airport?"Even though I satisfy the requirements to fly and have purchased a ticket (entered into the contract), if I don't answer those questions satisfactorily, I'm a candidate for denied check-in. It's as simple as that.

Those are security questions, and have nothing to do with immigration or the matter at hand. If you answered the questions "incorrectly", you would be referred to the proper department for further vetting.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 68, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5634 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 67):
Need a source for this where it says the airline is responsible even if the docs were in order.

In the UK at least it is all laid out in the relevant provisions of the Immigration Act (1971) (relating to the burden of removal being on the carrier for any passenger found inadmissible) and previously the Carriers' Liability Act (1987) (relating to charges for inadequately documented passengers). The CLA has since been repealed, but equivalent (arguably even tougher) provisions were incorporated into section 40 of the Immigration and Asylum Act (1999). I know that at least in the rest of the EU (the Schengen states) there are similar legal provisions, and anecdotally am also aware that countries such as the US have likewise. It's a very common principle. I'm not 100% certain what Brazil has in the way of such legal provisions, but given the general pervasiveness of such principles in the sector I'd be very surprised if they relieved the airlines of such responsibilities.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 69, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5583 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 68):

I think the *convention* is that the airline takes you back using the return half of the ticket that the pax presumably had (and paid for), but is under no compulsion to do so or bear any other costs if it itself did nothing wrong. If it does bear additional costs, they can retrieve it later from the passenger.

Dug this up, from KLM's own conditions of carriage:

"Refusal of Entry
If a Passenger is refused entry into a territory, the Passenger must pay all the charges or fines imposed on the Carrier by the local authorities, as well as the price of the carriage if the Carrier, due to a government order, is required to return the Passenger to his/her departure location or elsewhere. The price paid for the carriage to the destination for which entry to the territory was refused shall not be refunded by the Carrier."


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 70, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5560 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 69):
I think the *convention* is that the airline takes you back using the return half of the ticket that the pax presumably had (and paid for), but is under no compulsion to do so or bear any other costs if it itself did nothing wrong. If it does bear additional costs, they can retrieve it later from the passenger.

That is not correct. In the UK, rest of EU and US at least, the authorities direct the carrier to remove the passenger who brought them in, regardless of whether a return ticket is already held. In the event that a return ticket was held then the carrier has simply lucked out and loses less.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 71, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5533 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 70):
That is not correct. In the UK, rest of EU and US at least, the authorities direct the carrier to remove the passenger who brought them in, regardless of whether a return ticket is already held

Even if this is the case, the question of who bears the cost if the pax's documentation was in order and there was no error on part of the airline remains unclear. It seems from the KLM CoC that they will charge the passenger.

Of course this is a hassle airline would prefer not to deal with either way, but that does not give airline the unilateral right to play the role of an immigration officer and deny a passenger boarding on mere suspicion or hunch if all docs are in order.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2095 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5515 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 70):
In the event that a return ticket was held then the carrier has simply lucked out and loses less.

Anyone traveling without a confirmed return ticket to a five day conference is a suspect or if sponsoring organization is under immigration watch in Brazil.

Forget about saving money for KLM, but this agent burdened KLM with a lot. Barring local labor laws he can kiss his job good bye.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 73, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5516 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 71):
Even if this is the case, the question of who bears the cost if the pax's documentation was in order and there was no error on part of the airline remains unclear

In the countries I'm familiar with it's not unclear at all. Like I say, in the UK the Immigration Act (1971) provides that a carrier must remove any passenger found inadmissible as directed, at their own expense.

I came across another relevant thread recently sharing experiences from several other members on the subject.

If Refused Entry At Immigration - Rtn Flights? (by BristolFlyer Jul 11 2006 in Civil Aviation)



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAyostoLeon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 74, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5513 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 69):

This "convention" would only apply where the passenger had a return ticket and where acccess to a country was dependent on such a ticket. That may be very common but is not inexclusive. A person who in full faith thought they were able to migrate to another country might have a one way ticket and, despite having otherwise valid documents, could be refused entry. In such an instance, the airline would have no "return" portion to offset the cost against, despite being bound to remove the passenger who was refused entry for whatever reason.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 75, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5476 times:

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 74):
A person who in full faith thought they were able to migrate to another country might have a one way ticket and, despite having otherwise valid documents, could be refused entry. In such an instance, the airline would have no "return" portion to offset the cost against, despite being bound to remove the passenger who was refused entry for whatever reason.
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 73):

In the countries I'm familiar with it's not unclear at all. Like I say, in the UK the Immigration Act (1971) provides that a carrier must remove any passenger found inadmissible as directed, at their own expense.

Sure, but the airline can claim it back from the passengers. If they are unable to do that, chalk it up to an unavoidable risk and cost of doing business, just like ATC delays and weather-related diversions. It certainly does not give the airline the authority or the right to play immigration officer and deny boarding when all docs are in order. Doing so opens them up to much more risk.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 76, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5434 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 75):
Sure, but the airline can claim it back from the passengers. If they are unable to do that, chalk it up to an unavoidable risk and cost of doing business

Indeed. It may sound like an unfair burden on the face of it, but as you say - it is a risk of the business. Also, while it's not exactly uncommon per se for a passenger to be refused entry, it's worth bearing in mind that the vast majority of travellers present no such problems, so it's not an insurmountable risk or cost on the whole.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 75):
It certainly does not give the airline the authority or the right to play immigration officer and deny boarding when all docs are in order

That's an entirely different matter, of course. I too would in principle be against airline staff setting themselves up as immigration officers in that manner, but then to play devil's advocate, if they had for example recently seen a cluster of passengers being returned in certain circumstances, and they saw someone who rang alarm bells, it might seem natural that questions would be asked. None of us can say to what extent any of those factors were at play here, so I on balance would come down on your side and say that I don't really think they should have done what they did if the passenger's documents were in order.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAyostoLeon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 77, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5399 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 76):

I can see merit in that if, and only if, the airlines recompense passengers over and beyond the cost of the airfare. For the airlines the cost of repatriation in most instances is not all that great because the costs of any flight are known and factored into the fares for seats before they are sold.

For an individual person travellling on business the costs of refusal will often be greater than any airfares or accommodation they may have booked. Refusal to admit may not simply a be a wasted journey but a loss of future business earnings, even if they may be unquantifiable at the time, simply because of a perceived doubt about the credibility of the person.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 78, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5382 times:

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 77):
For an individual person travellling on business the costs of refusal will often be greater than any airfares or accommodation they may have booked. Refusal to admit may not simply a be a wasted journey but a loss of future business earnings, even if they may be unquantifiable at the time, simply because of a perceived doubt about the credibility of the person.

That aspect is outside the airline's control, as the airline is merely doing as instructed by the relevant authorities. I would suggest that if an individual feels significantly out of pocket then they could complain to the authorities, though in many countries I suspect that little, if any, response would be forthcoming.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAyostoLeon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 79, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5315 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 78):

But are they? If the airline checked out that the passenger had a valid passport and/ or visa as outlined in any notices, how can they excuse any "hunches" or "gut feelings" when we do not know whether the passenger woud have been refused admission to a country in the first place?

Had the passenger actually flown they might have been admitted without problem yet the airline is absolved of any responsibility on a whim. They may have a legal clearance to presume people gulity in the absense of any evidence but that that does not make it right, even if it might protect the shareholders.

There is an argument for saying that airlines should not be penalised for arbitrary decisions of governments. Equally there is an argument that passengers should be protected from arbitrary decisions of airlines and their employees, whether direct employees or contracted staff.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 80, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5298 times:

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 79):
But are they? If the airline checked out that the passenger had a valid passport and/ or visa as outlined in any notices, how can they excuse any "hunches" or "gut feelings" when we do not know whether the passenger woud have been refused admission to a country in the first place?

Had the passenger actually flown they might have been admitted without problem yet the airline is absolved of any responsibility on a whim. They may have a legal clearance to presume people gulity in the absense of any evidence but that that does not make it right, even if it might protect the shareholders.

Apologies, it appears I misunderstood you. I hadn't realised you were referring to the circumstances of the OP, namely the principle of denying carriage on suspicion when all documentation is in order. Yes, that would be very different. Seems the sensible thing would be to refer to the authorities at destination before takeoff and put the ball in their court. Then, if they weren't happy and recommended that the passenger not be boarded, the airline could legitimately claim that they were following the advice of the authorities of the country involved.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20746 posts, RR: 62
Reply 81, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5277 times:

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 79):
Equally there is an argument that passengers should be protected from arbitrary decisions of airlines and their employees, whether direct employees or contracted staff.

In most countries I'm aware of, one would have to prove malice to take such a claim forward. Otherwise, all the airline would have to do is provide a reason why their agent felt there to be some sort of reason to suspect that the passenger wasn't "ready to fly".



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAyostoLeon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 82, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5231 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 80):

No problem. It is hard to follow when I chop between general arguments and specifics.   Usually I use the general to highlight the specific. But not always. That can cause confusion and sometimes I suffer from it as well.  
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 81):

Yes and that would be quite difficult to prove and in most instances might have no basis. Nevertheless it could be a worry for passengers from countries where there is a presumption of a greater risk of abusing immigration laws that might apply.


User currently offlineAkiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 786 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days ago) and read 4893 times:

Good news: Arjean Marie Belco has arrived in GIG and was met by the Philippine ambassador to Brazil and her host family. Looks like this fear that she is inadmissible seems irrelevant now.

Now there are still three overarching questions that have been left unanswered:

* Why has KLM not yet apologized for the incident?
* Given that KLM has done this before, is it being racist?
* Why was there active censorship of posts dealing with Ms. Belco's ordeal on KLM's Facebook page?

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/6...e-to-world-youth-day-from-boarding

[Edited 2013-07-24 22:50:19]

User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1465 posts, RR: 2
Reply 84, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4632 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 81):
In most countries I'm aware of, one would have to prove malice to take such a claim forward. Otherwise, all the airline would have to do is provide a reason why their agent felt there to be some sort of reason to suspect that the passenger wasn't "ready to fly".

I still think many airline guys here do not take breach of contract serious. You can not state a "reason" for a breach if the reason is not part of the contract or stated in a law. Airlines usually pay compensation to avoid being prosecuted.

If malice is involved it gets criminal.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20746 posts, RR: 62
Reply 85, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4562 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 84):
If malice is involved it gets criminal.

Malice can also be a civil cause, the basis for punitive damage awards. You can act in a malicious manner without it being criminal.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 86, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4416 times:

Quoting Akiestar (Reply 83):
* Given that KLM has done this before, is it being racist?

It's always tricky when dealing with questions of nationality and immigration risk for airlines. It's more likely to be prejudice about appearing poor etc, than it is purely about race.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1465 posts, RR: 2
Reply 87, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4327 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 85):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 84):
If malice is involved it gets criminal.

Malice can also be a civil cause, the basis for punitive damage awards. You can act in a malicious manner without it being criminal.

You need malice for it to become criminal, for the civil case you only need breach of contract you do not have to prove malice, but malice could lead to punitive compensation.


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2071 posts, RR: 24
Reply 88, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4164 times:

Unfortunately, passengers in the developing world don't seem to react harshly enough to such mistreatment (which really is routine by first world airlines). Stop giving them your business and watch how the airlines and their governments dramatically improve their treatment of developing world pax.

While I loathe the UAE for its backwards human rights record, ironically, EK might well have been more understanding in situations like these. They understand travellers from the developing world far better.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 89, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4144 times:

Quoting YTZ (Reply 88):
Unfortunately, passengers in the developing world don't seem to react harshly enough to such mistreatment (which really is routine by first world airlines). Stop giving them your business and watch how the airlines and their governments dramatically improve their treatment of developing world pax.

While you have a point, there is no escaping the fact that some markets inherently pose a greater risk in these matters than others. Doubtless it's likely to be difficult for airlines to remain 100% objective if regularly encountering problems with particular nationalities, profiles, etc. But then, that's just part of their professional challenge - and doesn't necessarily excuse prejudice, though it may make it more explainable to some extent.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 90, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4023 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 89):
Doubtless it's likely to be difficult for airlines to remain 100% objective if regularly encountering problems with particular nationalities, profiles, etc.

But RussianJet, the airlines' role is to verify documents only.

Profiling for immigration risk is not something they should take onto themselves -- that is the job of departure and arrival immigration.

If they think something is odd, they should alert immigration, rather than take on the job of immigration officers.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 91, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3992 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 90):
If they think something is odd, they should alert immigration, rather than take on the job of immigration officers.

I quite agree with you there. As already discussed, I think they should refer to the authorities if they're so suspicious.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinevictrola From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 518 posts, RR: 1
Reply 92, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3958 times:

I don't see where the airline has any obligation beyond verifying that all documentation is in order. Is this correct or not?

If I catch a flight to Canada and am subsequently refused entry into that country because I have a criminal record, is the airline liable for my repatriation?


User currently offlineandrefranca From Brazil, joined May 2011, 627 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3824 times:

Quoting victrola (Reply 92):
If I catch a flight to Canada and am subsequently refused entry into that country because I have a criminal record, is the airline liable for my repatriation?

it is! But I believe the agents are more concerned about the fines immigration may impose on the carrier if one of the documents are invalid.

I've seeing several times brazilian immigration police (I have good friends there) fining CM for bringing pax's without visas or something like that.


User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3394 posts, RR: 6
Reply 94, posted (1 year 3 months 3 hours ago) and read 3427 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 58):
And opens itself to a lawsuit and bad PR.

Lawsuit? On what grounds? Have you ever read a contract of carriage?

Quoting sankaps (Reply 67):
I call BS on this. I worked for a major int'l carrier for years and there was no such rule. You must work for some oddball airline.

Perhaps things have changed. With the current economic climate, I'm not surprised if airlines are beginning to view their entry-level employees as more replaceable considering how many applications they get every time there's an opening.


User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3394 posts, RR: 6
Reply 95, posted (1 year 3 months 3 hours ago) and read 3420 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 38):
I think that in this case the airline or the airline agent was pissed because of the low price ticket.

   Please... do you know how many $9 tickets I saw as an agent for NK? Denying boarding to a passenger because of the fare paid is almost as quick a trip to the unemployment line as accepting someone who's inadmissible.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 46):
I would find it fairly hard to believe that an agent would be canned for allowing a correctly-documented passenger to travel, even if they were refused entry on arrival at destination. If said agent allowed someone to fly without the requisite visa or valid passport, then I could absolutely see that being career-limiting.

They wouldn't, but if they had any doubts, they now have a duty to deny boarding until they can come to a definitive conclusion. If a manager tells me to deny a passenger despite otherwise meeting all of the TIMATIC requirements, I don't question it because I like having the ability to buy food and pay for shelter.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 57):
If the airlines followed prescribed procedures and due to the vagaries of an individual at a check point someone is not admitted, why should the airline pay? I have no objection to people being punished for doing something wrong or failing to do the right thing, but to hold them responsible even when they do follow prescribed procedure, and can show that they did, is unjust.

Because the airline brought them into the country and the mindset is that the airline should always know better. This results in overly cautious agents which results in incidents like these.


User currently offlineAkiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 786 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (1 year 3 months 2 hours ago) and read 3334 times:

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 94):
Lawsuit? On what grounds? Have you ever read a contract of carriage?

You really think 99.9% of passengers read the contract of carriage? If they were to sue, it would be because of that particular incident in question. But this is beside the point, as I will mention in the next comment.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 95):
Because the airline brought them into the country and the mindset is that the airline should always know better. This results in overly cautious agents which results in incidents like these.

I have problems believing that this is a result of such a mindset, let alone the existence of such a mindset. Airlines cannot read the minds of immigration officers (except perhaps in countries where there are no exit controls, like the U.S. or the UK, where there is access to such data), and them "knowing better" is highly subjective.

While I agree that airlines should not be faulted for the decisions of immigration officers, I don't think that gives agents the prerogative to determine one's admissibility on the basis of a hunch, whether objective, subjective or otherwise. Heck, we still don't know why Mr. Shawa denied Ms. Belco. Is it because she's Filpina? Is it because she's from Mindanao? Is it because she looks poor? Either way, that does not justify what happened here: that despite being cleared to leave Malaysia and despite KLM checking her in, they ultimately decided not to let her board because of a hunch.

I can only foresee the media frenzy that will be whipped up here when Arjean Marie Belco returns from Rio de Janeiro.


User currently offlineMillwallSean From Singapore, joined Apr 2008, 1270 posts, RR: 6
Reply 97, posted (1 year 3 months 1 hour ago) and read 3288 times:

Quoting Akiestar (Reply 96):
You really think 99.9% of passengers read the contract of carriage? If they were to sue, it would be because of that particular incident in question. But this is beside the point, as I will mention in the next comment.

Yet again, we cant refer to the contract of carriage. Contracts cant be enforced unless they follow local legislation.
Thats why quite a few US airline contracts arent valid under European courts for instance. .
The lady presented valid documents and were denied. Case closed.

I actually emailed our local KL representative (from our corporate account) and asked if this behaviour is compatible with KL policies and how it has been addressed.
I wrote that as a company based on christian values we are concerned by this and would like an explanation before we consider future travel needs.

Took 10 minutes before I got a very professional letter back admitting responsability, explaining a local representative acting on KL behalf, not a KL employee had made a mistake. That it was not not KL itself and that this was an individuals mistake and that KL has taken actions to ensure it can not happen again. This email was definately not written by our local office and i can safely say KL knows there is no good coming from this.

I suggest we all do this and see what KL has to say. (Deep down we help combat prejudiscm and rascism by this so its a good cause)

Me I am happy the little girl arrived safely into Brazil and gets to enjoy her days there. Being met by the ambassador and catholic representatives at the airport and happily accepted into Brazil. Lets hope she has a great time.

I wonder if this media frenzy will hit Europe, then KL has had it, no matter them not being part of this decision. Im sure that since its summer its something the newspapers can write about.

Mr Shawa, not sure if thats an indian / pakistani or malay name?



No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
User currently offlinefactsonly From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 950 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3209 times:

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 97):
Took 10 minutes before I got a very professional letter back admitting responsability, explaining a local representative acting on KL behalf, not a KL employee had made a mistake. That it was not not KL itself and that this was an individuals mistake and that KL has taken actions to ensure it can not happen again. This email was definately not written by our local office and i can safely say KL knows there is no good coming from this.
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 97):
I wonder if this media frenzy will hit Europe, then KL has had it, no matter them not being part of this decision. Im sure that since its summer its something the newspapers can write about.

So you have established the fact that a local Malaysian Airport Handling Agent acting on-behalf of KLM (and probably many other airlines that this could have happened to) has made a Check-In error and then you continue to say that the airline will suffer for it ............ no matter them NOT being part of this decision (your words).

Is that not being highly prejudice and judgmental, as you admit to understanding the facts.

Have you heard the expression 'The Pot calling the Kettle black' ?


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1465 posts, RR: 2
Reply 99, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3127 times:

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 95):
Please... do you know how many $9 tickets I saw as an agent for NK? Denying boarding to a passenger because of the fare paid is almost as quick a trip to the unemployment line as accepting someone who's inadmissible.

"The airline employee, Mr. Shawa, told the staff of Goodxorg over the phone that there was nothing he could do and that another ticket had to be bought."

That mentions buying another ticket! Why would she have to buy another ticket when the agent did not want to let her travel anyway?

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 95):
They wouldn't, but if they had any doubts, they now have a duty to deny boarding until they can come to a definitive conclusion. If a manager tells me to deny a passenger despite otherwise meeting all of the TIMATIC requirements, I don't question it because I like having the ability to buy food and pay for shelter.

That is BS. I the passenger meets all requirements, than it is not the duty of the agent to deny boarding because he has a itchy nose. To deny boarding to a passenger having all the required travel documentation is very simple breach of contract by the airline and opens the airline up to having to pay compensation.

If the airline brings a passenger to a country, the passenger having all the required documentation, if than the passenger is denied entry on a whim of the immigration agent, that is the risk of being in the business of flying passengers.
There is no way to guaranty entry into for example the USA. The immigration officer can deny entry without giving even a reason.
If the airline does not want to have this risk they should stop carrying passengers.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1465 posts, RR: 2
Reply 100, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3077 times:

Quoting factsonly (Reply 98):
So you have established the fact that a local Malaysian Airport Handling Agent acting on-behalf of KLM (and probably many other airlines that this could have happened to) has made a Check-In error and then you continue to say that the airline will suffer for it ............ no matter them NOT being part of this decision (your words).

Is that not being highly prejudice and judgmental, as you admit to understanding the facts.

Have you heard the expression 'The Pot calling the Kettle black' ?

Even if the agent does not work directly for KLM, he represents KLM in regard to the passenger, so his actions are the actions of KLM.
KLM admits to the "error", but how fast did they react? Did they pay the extra costs of her staying in Malaysia? Did they fly her out to Brasil as soon as possible after knowing of it? Did they upgrade her flight and payed some compensation?

They seem to have waited for the story to hit the papers before they reacted and it took days not hours. It seems all to often to take some serious pressure on the airline before they do the right thing.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
USAir Denies Boarding To Retarded Child posted Wed May 9 2001 18:34:40 by LoneStarMike
KLM Increases Budapest To 737-900 ( Pics ) posted Thu Sep 6 2012 06:35:57 by kl911
AA Denies Boarding To Teen With Down Syndrome posted Tue Sep 4 2012 16:04:42 by PROSA
KLM Seat Allocation To The Dutch Caribbean Islands posted Mon Sep 3 2012 19:21:04 by A388
KLM A330 Flights To ABC Islands: Eff. Oct 28 2012 posted Wed Aug 15 2012 18:33:03 by A388
KLM MD-11 To LAX posted Thu Jun 7 2012 15:39:22 by KLAXAirport
KLM Increases NRT To 10xweekly posted Sat Jul 10 2010 05:01:13 by klmcedric
AF/KLM "most Likely" To Split W/b Order posted Wed May 19 2010 13:26:59 by n1786b
KLM F70 Returning To AMS posted Thu Apr 8 2010 12:26:32 by noelg
When / Why Did KLM Cease Service To Belfast? posted Wed Mar 31 2010 03:06:15 by jamesontheroad