Visas & Airline Checks

[reynoldsno1]

Recently I departed for an extended business visit to Vietnam (6 weeks) and took mrsr1 allong for the duration. Accordingly, we applied for visa for the stay, and were issued with colourful documentation in our respective passports. The validity dates of the visa covered a period of 90 days.

On checking in at our domestic airport for the 1st leg of the journey, we were denied even that privilege. The somewhat officious staff said we did not have the proper documentation, and that we could not stay in Vietnam for longer than 30 days. They refused to accept the validity dates of the visa, and said they were the dates of the period when the visa had to used. I was even told I need a visa exemption letter, until I pointed out I hardly needed an exemption when I already had a visa.

I then showed the invitation letter I had from the organisation I would be working with. Nope, not enough. I then found that I had a copy of the visa application for 43 days. OK, that's alright. Do you have a copy of your wife's visa application? No, but it was the same as mine. No good, she can't check-in. You have to change her return flights, so that she stays less than 30 days. Time was running out, so we did this, at a cost, with minutes to spare.

Some 24 hours later .... Immigration in Hanoi required no forms. There were no questions, and both our passports were stamped with a permission to enter for 90 days. Required exit date - the same as the visa.

I have now re-booked mrsr1's flights back to the original schedule - at more cost. I intend making a travel insurance claim for the additional fees we have had to pay. Hopefully, the insurance company will then open negotiations with the airline. I can't see how the airline has a leg to stand on.

Anyone got any pearls of wisdom to impart about this?

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

Nope, other than to say that I doubt travel insurance would cover something like this. I would take this up with the airline that you booked with personally, sending them copies of all documents, receipts etc etc and demanding that they refund your expenses.

You could do that now while you are in Vietnam, no need to wait till you return. Your airline will have a customer service department that you will be able to email.

[reynoldsno1]

Have checked the insurance fine print and you're quite right Johnny. Tks

[ExXB]

You need to go back to the airline. If nothing else they need to know one of their employees / agents is seriously misinformed on the visa requirements. If they are not the airline who charged you the change fee you need to ask them to either refund you the money themselves, or get the issuing airline to refund you. Don't forget to ask for compensation for wasting your time, etc.

Be as clear as possible as what you want from them. That actually makes it easier to deal with your claim.

[PAXboy]

May one ask the airport you departed from? Also, sounds like it was not a direct flight? Were all sectors with the same carrier?

[reynoldsno1]

Wellington - Air NZ & Singapore Airlines (code share)

[RevMan2]

WLG?! Air NZ?! That says everything!
Flew with them AKLLAX once, ESTA all set up, onward ticket, the whole deal. "I need to see your Germany residency permit"
Really? "Yes, I can't let you travel otherwise"
Did out a very dog-eared 35 year old document.
"This isn't you and anyway it's all in German"
You couldn't make this stuff up...

[PAXboy]

The only time I've had this kind of problem was with SQ! In Feb this year, I was booked LHR~SYD, via SIN (straight through with a just couple of hours layover, longer than planned due to a mistake by SQ). When I tried to check-in online, I was refused. Spoke to their helpdesk and was told that my passport would expire in less than six months and they could not accept that and I could not travel.

This started a long series of enquires over the next 24 hours and included me pointing out to SQ that, I had given them my passport details months before when booking. Their reply (on the phone and at the airport) was:
We have to ensure that all our passengers comply with the requirements of the destination country.
I said (many times): "I have done, and Australia have issued my E-visa and here is the detail printed out. If Australia had not accepted my soon to expire passport, I would have replaced it in the last three months."
"But we cannot let you board as you might want to leave the airport in Singapore."
"I have no intention of the leaving the airport in Singapore."
Repeat as required ...

The previous evening, I had read the detailed Ts&Cs of the ticket and there was no reference to the rules in SIN, only the destination country.

Eventually, at the aiport, they produced a form which they filled in. It was headed 'Irregularity of Travel Document', which kind of gave the game away that they had done this to their pax before! I got the impression that the senior agent who had been summoned knew the stupidity of this but he did what he had to do.

We filled it in and I promised to indemnify SQ against all sort of ghouls and goblins (I still have my copy of it) and away we went.

In all other regards, SQ were brilliant. But I have seen more examples where carriers and countries now reckon a 5 year passport is only valid for 4.5 years.

[cee cee]

Entry into Australia does not need the six month validity on your passport (https://www.passports.gov.au/Pages/frequentlyaskedquestions.aspx#faq8), but entry into Singapore does (https://www.ica.gov.sg/page.aspx?pageid=95).

I realise you did not technically enter Singapore, but the airline is not able to stop you if you tried to enter.

Also, I believe the airline gets penalised by the destination country if they carried over passengers with improper documentation. I had to wait at the check-in counter a few times while phone calls were made to confirm that my documents were sufficient.

[PAXboy]

I do not dispute that cee cee. But if only SQ had asked me? If only their automated system had recognised passport validity dates? If they had not asked but had put it in the Ts&Cs - then they could have smugly pointed this out to me.

But they did none of those and only referred to the requirements of the destination country. Accordingly, I felt they were in error and gave me undue anxiety. Not something I associate with SQ. From the first booking to travel was about four months and I would have renewed my passport - if they has stated their requirement.

[Heathrow Harry]

I thought it was pretty well known that you are taking a risk travelling on a passport with only 6 months left............... lots of places don't like it.......

[cee cee]

PAXboy, I was going to point out that the requirement was not one imposed by the airline, but by the country, but started wondering whether that requirement actually exists for transiting passengers, so I did a search and found this:

https://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/mfa/overseasmission/canberra/visa_information/faq_new.htmlCan I travel with less than six months validity?
You can transit if you do not need to go through immigration in Singapore, though you will still need permission from your airline to board the plane. However, if you do need to go through immigration, you are strongly advised to renew your passport before travelling.
So it looks like you were right after all, you do not need the additional validity for transiting, but at the same time, the airline is able to prevent you from boarding on those grounds.


Fun, eh?

[PAXboy]

All I can say, Heathrow Harry, is that:
1. Australia issued the Visa without question.
2. SQ only said I needed six months with less than 24 hours before departure.
3. They had four months to tell me.
4. Their Ts&Cs made zero reference to needing six months.
5. I had not originally intended to go out of the airport at SIN.
6. The reason I had the time to go out is because SQ made a stuff up of our booking and we had a 12 hour layover!
7. They acknowledged their mistake by issuing vouchers.

I thought I had done all that was required.

[cee cee]

Does SQ have or store any information about your passport prior to your check-in? In the last few years, my only international travel is with Scoot (TZ), and I have never entered any passport information when booking the ticket.

[ExXB]

Most airlines use a 'clip-on' system to collect APIS. i.e. their systems were not designed around the collection of passport (and other information) but it was added on at a much later date. Often the APIS information is not interfaced with the PNR data - they are linked but not to the extent that the airline can 'see' and use passport information. Of course privacy laws, which differ in every jurisdiction, do limit how the data can be held and used.

There is no IATA standard. They have gotten out of the business due to competition law concerns.

[Harry Wayfarers]

By chance did you pay by credit, not debit but credit, card? ... Credit agreement and all that!

[cee cee]

Harry, if you mean me, I have paid with credit (not debit) card as well as POLI (bank transfer) previously. In both cases the payment is made after all the flight details (including fringe add-ons) have been finalised.

And I have just tried out SQ's online booking, and the passenger details section does not ask for passport information other than passenger name. So I don't see how PAXboy can reasonably expect SQ to inform him of passport requirements.

[PAXboy]

Well ... if they had not collected that information but wanted me to have six months, might they not have put that in their Ts&Cs? Then they could have pointed at them and told me that I was wrong. Yet, all the conversation was about 'meeting the requirements of the destination country'. Which I did. THEN they told me that their govt wanted me to have six months. As it was less than 24 hours before travel, this did not help very much.

Anyway, it's history.

[esa-aardvark]

Departing Fremantle by ship, I was told that I needed a New
Zealand visa, as that was where I was going. My response -
but that is a New Zealand passport. Their reply, you still need a visa !
Solved by finding someone sensible.

[ExXB]

Some years ago Air Canada flew Toronto-Heathrow-Delhi-Singapore. All NONREVs travelling to/from SIN were required to have Indian visas, in the event (even unlikely) they were off-loaded there. Revenue passengers were not though.

[cee cee]

PAXboy's story has intrigued me. I wondered, if SQ has denied him permission to board, what possible grounds could they use to do so? ie, where in their T&C does it allow them to do so? So I had a look at their T&C, and this is what I think they can use:

Conditions of carriage (http://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/global_footer/conditions-carriage/)ARTICLE 14. ADMINISTRATIVE FORMALITIES. (http://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/global_footer/conditions-carriage/#)
Para. 1. General.
The passenger shall be solely responsible for complying with all laws, regulations, orders, demands and travel requirements of countries to be flown from, into or over, and with Carrier's Regulations and instructions. Carrier shall not be liable for any aid or information given by any agent or employee of Carrier to any passenger in connection with obtaining necessary documents or visas or complying with such laws, regulations, orders, demands, and requirements, whether given in writing or otherwise; or for the consequences to any passenger resulting from his failure to obtain such documents or visas or to comply with such laws, regulations, orders, demands, requirements, rules or instructions.
Para. 2. Travel Documents.
The passenger shall present all exit, entry, health and other documents required by laws, regulations, orders, demands or requirements of the countries concerned, and permit Carrier to take and retain copies thereof. Carrier reserves the right to refuse carriage of any passenger who has not complied with applicable laws, regulations, orders, demands or requirements or whose documents do not appear to be in order, or who does not permit Carrier to take and retain copies thereof.
So if SQ should argue that PAXboy's documents do not appear to be in order, that might work.

The next hypothetical situation would then be, if PAXboy was able to show them the official Singapore government website that says that he does not need the additional passport validity for transiting, would they have relented?

But as PAXboy says, this is all history that has ended without tears. I am just having a bit of fun thinking through hypothetical scenarios.

[Mr Mac]

Paxboy
Maybe if you are doing a lot of travelling you should apply for 2nd Passport. You used to be able to get 2nd UK one for travelling to certain countries in the Levant, if then travelling elsewhere in that region if you know what I mean.
I have by accident dual UK / Swiss nationality. My Father was trying to get back to Yorkshire so I was eligible for County Cricket, but Mum failed him in Zurich airport, so I picked that up by accident. I have to say very useful to have in certain 3rd world countries where local despot has his / her ill-gotten stash in Zurich banks, and as I was useless at Cricket anyway it was no loss to Yorkshire, but that Red and White crossed passport has come in very useful from time to time.


Regards
Mr Mac

[PAXboy]

Thanks Mr Mac, I don't (now) travel as much as I used to. I agree that I was certainly partly to blame but, when it came down to it, on the phone and at check in, the only terms used by staff were about the destination country. The bit about the Singapore govt wanting me to have six months was only thrown in at check-in and when they were already filling out the form!

As I say, I think the fact that they had a standard form ready to go, should tell them that they need to make a more positive push of information to their pax.