"US Official" bars child from Boarding LHR-LAS Flight

[wiggy]

OK, with the massive caveat that it's from the UK's very own Daily Wail :oh:, I'm going to ask, slightly rhetorically: am I the only one who thinks we're not being told anything like the full and accurate story here:....


US Homeland Security BARRED boy from the US as they headed for a Las Vegas holiday | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3199896/British-schoolboy-8-barred-possible-security-threat-boards-flight-Las-Vegas-family-holiday.html)


"Martin Saunders, from Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex, was preparing to board a flight from Heathrow to New York with his son Drew when they were stopped by a man who said he was a US Homeland Security official.
Then, despite being just 20ft from the plane - and having passed through two security checks already - Mr Saunders and Drew were told they could not fly to the US." (my emphasis).

[lomapaseo]

Child custody question likely

[Gibon2]

Child custody question likely

No, the mother was with them too. She was allowed to travel, but understandably chose not to.

I always wonder what happens in these cases: does the airline refund the ticket? Does travel insurance cover the resulting cancellations?

[ExXB]

In theory it is the passenger's responsibility to have the necessary documentation to travel to the destination and/or intermediate transit points.

So it would depend on a number of things. Type of ticket, frequent flyer status, goodwill sought by the airline.

Just as it may not be the travellers fault they were not allowed to travel, nor is it the airlines.

I doubt you can insure against government stupidity either.

:mad: happens

[alserire]

I wonder how you can get away with not telling people why. Fine if I can't travel but have the decency to let me know why just in case, you know, you've got the wrong person. Homeland Security wouldn't exactly be infallible now.

[DaveReidUK]

Lots of speculation in the media that the DHS habitually haul people off flights if they are suspected of abusing the ESTA/Visa Waiver programme, ie by planning to work when they get to the States, or even relocate there.

Given that they are neither inclined nor obliged to explain their actions, I suspect that speculation is all that we're going to get here.

[wiggy]

Lots of speculation in the media that the DHS habitually haul people off flights if they are suspected of abusing the ESTA/Visa Waiver programme,

Sure, the US authorities ensure certain people don't board flights to the States, for all sorts of reasons. I've been involved in flights subject to delays because of this over the years so I can believe the basic circumstances behind the story - and you're right, you won't get an explanation. However what really made me raise my eyebrows was the claim that this lad was denied boarding in person by someone seemingly claiming to be a US Homeland Security Official, apparently operating in an official capacity/in a customer facing role, at LHR, at the gate........now that is news to me.

[PAXboy]

wiggy
now that is news to meIt may have been someone representing US Homeland and the reporting is wrong but, if it was an actual US operative? I would not be in the least bit surprised at anything a UK govt did not allow a US govt to do. It makes no never mind which party is in power in either country - we are always subservient.

[ExXB]

wiggy,
I believe that US 'Homeland Security' personnel have been working at UK/EU airports for a number of years. They are unarmed (thank goodness) and they have no official capacity other than to advise the airline/pilot that the aircraft would not be allowed into US airspace if PAX 'so-and-so' is on board. This applies both to aircraft destined to the US and those intending to overfly US airspace (i.e. Caribbean / Central America flights).

The airline obviously cooperates with the officials - what choice do they have?

Oh, this may be a secret. So don't tell anybody. Thank you.

OTOH would it have better for the passenger to have been refused entry at the arrival airport? (Or the aircraft required to fly around US airspace)?

[wiggy]

ExXB

OTOH would it have better for the passenger to have been refused entry at the arrival airport? (Or the aircraft required to fly around US airspace)?

Obviously not.....

Anyhow interesting stuff, I was aware "Homeland" had a formal role at some airports in the EU, I wasn't aware LHR might be one of them or that they ever got involved in customer facing stuff in mainland UK.

All the "offloads"/denied boarding at the behest of our cousins I have been aware of have been performed/actioned by the local airline staff or by UK officials (e.g "Border" or Police).

oh, and yes, I promise not to tell anyone....:ok:

[BKS Air Transport]

I am concerned about the claim that this so-called official apparently refused to identify himself, indeed turning his badge round. I find that unacceptable on the part of any representative of a foreign government on UK soil.

[PAXboy]

I find much of what the British govt does on British soil to be unacceptable. As I said, in all my adult life (I'm 58) all I have ever seen is brit govt rolling over in front of the USA. I don't know what strange hold they have but EVERY PM does the same thing.

[ExXB]

NSA. CIA, GCHQ*? What doesn't the U.S. know about British ministers?

Normally they are unseen, they are supposed to deal with the airline not directly with the non-admisable passenger. Don't know what happened in this case.

*Ya, I know these guys are supposed to be working for their government, but their loyalties seem to be split.

[DaveReidUK]

It's tempting to speculate what the outcome might have been, had the passenger invited the anonymous US official (who had refused to show his ID) to go forth and multiply.

Apart from anything else, if it had then been down to Virgin to do the offloading, I suspect that a claim for denied boarding compensation might have a more realistic chance of succeeding.

[PAXboy]

Time to take your mobile phone out and, whilst pretending to make a phone call - switch on the video/audio recording. You can then hold the phone down from your face and record the exchange. Risky but well worth the risk.

[ahwalk01]

Can't wait for preclearance to come to heathrow and manchester, not sure the rest of you are quite ready for that though...

[Chesty Morgan]

A Homeland Security spokesman later said those who admitted to taking drugs were 'inadmissible to the country.

Hint hint?

[DaveReidUK]

Hint hint?That was a reference to Nigella - are you suggesting he was mistaken for her?

[Chesty Morgan]

Is Nigella the only person who's admitted to taking drugs?

[DaveReidUK]

Is Nigella the only person who's admitted to taking drugs?I doubt it. But I still don't understand - who's hinting what, about whom?

[Chesty Morgan]

Well if Nigella isn't the only person to admit taking drugs do you think maybe somebody else has too?

Want me to walk you through it step by step?

[ExXB]

DaveReid. A claim for denied boarding would fail. This situation is not contemplated in EC Regulation 261. No airline would carry passengers that they have been told will not be admitted. It is not Virgin's fault, they simply cannot carry those passengers into US airspace. If they tried they, no doubt, would be greeted with F-15/16s and forced to turn back or divert to Canada/Bermuda.

[DaveReidUK]

Want me to walk you through it step by step?Yes please.

You could start with the reason why someone the DM suspects of trying to smuggle drugs would then want to sell his story to them ...

[Chesty Morgan]

Why would I do that? Nobody has mentioned smuggling except you.

[DaveReidUK]

> Nobody has mentioned smuggling except you.

OK OK, my mistake, I should have said guilty of drug supply or usage, that's what you were implying with your "those who admitted to taking drugs", was it not?

But the proposition that his denied boarding could have been as result of drug-related convictions is even more absurd. Any journo worth his salt, even one from the Daily Mail, would have been able to ascertain that and there would have been no need to "hint hint".

I'd give up on the druggy insinuations, if I were you, you are reading something into that article that just isn't there.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be something as simple as his name matching someone who has been recently added to the no-fly list. Plenty of documented instances of that.

[Chesty Morgan]

No that's not what I'm implying. There is a difference between taking drugs and taking drugs somewhere you're not allowed to, ie. Smuggling. Also there's a difference between admitting to and being convicted of.

How would you know he hadn't admitted to smoking a doobie or two in the past and that was enough to bar him from travelling?

Anyway, I wasn't insinuating as my first post was a question.

[ExXB]

If it's not that, it could be Moral turpitude, whatever that is.

[Hotel Tango]

How would you know he hadn't admitted to smoking a doobie or two in the past and that was enough to bar him from travelling?

But if it was "in the past" then he wouldn't have been accepted on any of the more recent previous occasions!

My money is in line with DaveR, most likely mis-identification. I believe that the only way to resolve that is indeed through the US Embassy. Meanwhile the poor guy is out of pocket through no fault of his own. Perhaps travel insurance companies should cover this eventuality in their policies (as long as it is proven that the claimant was wrongly denied boarding by Border authorities).

[Chesty Morgan]

Depends when he admitted it wouldn't it.

[Davef68]

Strange. If it's not 'No Fly' list it could be an ESTA violation (Overstaying previously? Not declaring something)?