I believe we have partially discussed this topic in other threads like airlines avoiding layovers in China for strict quarantine rules in place, but that had more to do with the fact of tight legislation applying at crews leaving the plane in China during the pandemic:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1457845&p=22653145#p22653145

With news like Australia banning all arrivals from India this week, even for nationals of the country trying to return home,

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 021-05-01/

... I wonder if at this stage countries (especially those who are particularly strict and "closed" to international travels like Australia) are already requesting airlines proof that no crew members operating legs to the country have recently been rostered any trip to high-risk areas, namely India now. Even if they just stayed in India locked down in a hotel room.

In other words: Could Australia be asking Qatar or Emirates to provide with recent trips flown by crews who are entering the country when flying DXB-MEL? Even when I assume those crews are not allowed to leave the hotel room while in OZ...

That made me think about how convenient would this make the establishment of overseas crew bases. If all these restrictions remain in place for the long (I reckon that's the case), it'll be hard for crew-rostering departments to efficiently track and use crews around the whole world depending on how this pandemic affects each side of the world...

The US just banned people from India as well.

zeke wrote:

The US just banned people from India as well.

No, they didn’t “ban people from India.”

As with other high caseload countries, they issued a 212(f), restricting entry into the US for foreign nationals who have been in India within the prior 14 days. There are a whole raft of exemptions to it though for LPR, medical and humanitarian workers, etc.

Back to the OP: any country that takes such action against flight crews does so at their own peril. At my airline we have told countries we’ll simply stop flying there and reallocate that capacity elsewhere when they have proposed certain things like that.

catiii wrote:

As with other high caseload countries, they issued a 212(f), restricting entry into the US for foreign nationals who have been in India within the prior 14 days.

Could you tell me how that is differs to the terminology I used, ie people from India ?

In English, a US foreign national from India would be a person from India or am I missing something obvious ?

zeke wrote:

catiii wrote:

As with other high caseload countries, they issued a 212(f), restricting entry into the US for foreign nationals who have been in India within the prior 14 days.

Could you tell me how that is differs to the terminology I used, ie people from India ?

In English, a US foreign national from India would be a person from India or am I missing something obvious ?

It is a fairly important distinction. Saying "The US just banned people from India" implies that Indian citizens regardless of origin are not being permitted on the basis of their citizenship. The US Government has restricted entry for foreign nationals (regardless of citizenship, excluding US citizens) that have been in India in the past 14 days. Obviously those are two very different things, and I'm sure you knew the distinction, but phrasing it the way you did could be interpreted very differently.

Back to the OP’s question, this has already been happening over the past year in lots of countries. For example when the British variant was first identified, countries like Israel stipulated that crew members who had worked flights to the UK in the past 14 days could not work flights to Israel etc.

zeke wrote:

catiii wrote:

As with other high caseload countries, they issued a 212(f), restricting entry into the US for foreign nationals who have been in India within the prior 14 days.

Could you tell me how that is differs to the terminology I used, ie people from India ?

In English, a US foreign national from India would be a person from India or am I missing something obvious ?

It's not "from India" but "who visited India.

If you're a Brit who was in India in the last 14 days, you can't enter the USA. Granted there are literally like 10 exceptions to the rule, but in a general sense, it's not specific to Indian nationals.

If you have ever worked in the region you undoubtedly know that the exemptions will be abused .

Fatbus wrote:

If you have ever worked in the region you undoubtedly know that the exemptions will be abused .

A loophole that was being used by people from India into Australia, passengers were spending 2 days in DOH and not disclosing their previous travel history.

catiii wrote:

zeke wrote:

The US just banned people from India as well.

Back to the OP: any country that takes such action against flight crews does so at their own peril. At my airline we have told countries we’ll simply stop flying there and reallocate that capacity elsewhere when they have proposed certain things like that.

My opinion on that, if it were indeed the case, is then simply let the airline stop flying there. See who that hurts more! Your comment implies that flight crews are somehow thought to be special and can ignore a sovereign country's entry policy with impunity

Vicenza wrote:

catiii wrote:

zeke wrote:

The US just banned people from India as well.

Back to the OP: any country that takes such action against flight crews does so at their own peril. At my airline we have told countries we’ll simply stop flying there and reallocate that capacity elsewhere when they have proposed certain things like that.

My opinion on that, if it were indeed the case, is then simply let the airline stop flying there. See who that hurts more! Your comment implies that flight crews are somehow thought to be special and can ignore a sovereign country's entry policy with impunity

It doesn’t hurt the airline more I can tell you that. Go ask some Caribbean nations how losing mainland US service would impact them.

Flight crews have historically been exempt from such restrictions.

Vicenza wrote:

catiii wrote:

zeke wrote:

The US just banned people from India as well.

Back to the OP: any country that takes such action against flight crews does so at their own peril. At my airline we have told countries we’ll simply stop flying there and reallocate that capacity elsewhere when they have proposed certain things like that.

My opinion on that, if it were indeed the case, is then simply let the airline stop flying there. See who that hurts more!

That's not difficult. PPE's, vaccines, medicine and medical equipment in general is delivered by air.

Vicenza wrote:

Your comment implies that flight crews are somehow thought to be special and can ignore a sovereign country's entry policy with impunity

Maybe because flight crews are special?

catiii wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

catiii wrote:

Back to the OP: any country that takes such action against flight crews does so at their own peril. At my airline we have told countries we’ll simply stop flying there and reallocate that capacity elsewhere when they have proposed certain things like that.

My opinion on that, if it were indeed the case, is then simply let the airline stop flying there. See who that hurts more! Your comment implies that flight crews are somehow thought to be special and can ignore a sovereign country's entry policy with impunity

It doesn’t hurt the airline more I can tell you that. Go ask some Caribbean nations how losing mainland US service would impact them.

Flight crews have historically been exempt from such restrictions.

Historically, yes. Now... maybe not so much.

eta unknown wrote:

catiii wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

My opinion on that, if it were indeed the case, is then simply let the airline stop flying there. See who that hurts more! Your comment implies that flight crews are somehow thought to be special and can ignore a sovereign country's entry policy with impunity

It doesn’t hurt the airline more I can tell you that. Go ask some Caribbean nations how losing mainland US service would impact them.

Flight crews have historically been exempt from such restrictions.

Historically, yes. Now... maybe not so much.

That view is not reflective of their view, nor their response.

Guess we'll agree to disagree then

eta unknown wrote:

Guess we'll agree to disagree then

Nothing to disagree on. A certain international destination told my airline our crews laying over would be subject to a PCR test AND a serology test on arrival, for reasons that made no sense scientifically or logically especially since the guidance from the nation for passengers is proof of a negative test predeparture grants entry. My airline pushed back. The destination reiterated it. My airline pushed back, said we would not continue flying there, and told the same to the tourism ministry. Miraculously the destination relented...