View Full Version : Stranded vet story
Some of you may have seen this:
Funds raised for US flight ban vet to return to Glasgow - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38788116)
The original version of this story had it that there were no direct flights from SJO back to the UK. I emailed the Beeb pointing out that BA currently fly three times a week. So they removed that bit. But I am still puzzled - if this lady and her partner were at the airport on Saturday morning - then they should have had ample time to catch the 15:45 to Gatwick? Would anybody know if that flight was actually full?
Mr Mac
30th Jan 2017, 11:40
25F
You got there before me to re the BA fight and BBC. I suspect that the flight with BA is more expensive than the route with AA v Trumpland, and availability maybe limited, but it is a relatively new service and I would be surprised if it was totally full though stand to be corrected as always.
radar101
30th Jan 2017, 11:42
I generally avoid transiting through the USA if there is any way round it - not worth the hassle.
wiggy
30th Jan 2017, 12:04
Would anybody know if that flight was actually full?
They do but they can't tell you, certainly in not any detail...though I do rather think Mr Mac might have summed it up correctly when he said he would be suprised if it were full. :E
Perhaps the more important thing, as far as the vet was concerned , and again as Mr Mac has pointed out, is how much a last minute booking direct with BA would have cost?
If you look at the image of the printout in the BBC article there's reference to the stranded vet needing to contact her travel agent and her holding a "bulk ticket" - whatever that is. I wonder if a travel agent did the replanning/reticketing, maybe using a cheaper carrier and/or a carrier that might have given some credit, so to speak, for the money lost by not being able to stick to the original itinary: presumably they travelled on Iberia on the Sunday?.
Gee, isn't the oneworld alliance really great, helping their customer whom through no fault iof her own, was affected by a change in government policy.
Kudos to every kind hearted person that contributed to help her get home. The airlines, however should be ashamed for not accepting the original ticket.
renfrew
30th Jan 2017, 16:24
I suspect the original routing might have been United SJO/EWR/GLA.
I did wonder if it might have been possible to transfer the ticket to BA or IB under involuntary reroute rules.
Stand to be corrected, but AFAIK all passengers on flights over USA require US clearance even though the flight is not scheduled to land in the US
If the passenger in question is on a passport from one of the seven countries, they would already have to go through a huge hoopla of interviews at the US consulate to get a visa, just to transit the USA. Given the range of other carriers from Europe to Costa Rica, that seems surprising.
Equally surprising are accounts of "chaotic scenes" at US airport arrivals. The nationals of the seven countries surely have hardly any extent of travel to the USA anyway.
It's not as if the small number of affected pax could not see this coming. The new President has stated this would be his policy multiple times, and was going to apply it immediately. It was widely covered in the media. He won two months ago and it was always known when he would take office.
WHBM, I'm going to leave the politics of the decision to JetBlast.
Having worked in facilitation for many years I am appalled by how this new policy was implemented. Apparently one old guy decided it was going to happen without considering the realities of modern travel. In transit visa holding passengers, dual citizens, Green card holders, etc. It took two or three days to have him back down on some of the above.
Most of these passengers were not borded and are in limbo at their origin point but a few hundred were already in the air and now are in limbo in detention facilities.
This could have been done a lot better than it was.
wiggy
31st Jan 2017, 07:28
Having heard about how this was handled by some who were on the ground I'm inclinded to agree with ExXB. The "prior warnings" may have been in the media but according to many these days the media can't be trusted.... Regardless of the media warnings many people had had transit cards/visas issued in the last two months - Genuine Question - did those who issued visas/Green cards in that time also give an "official" prior warning when handing over the documents?
From what I've heard nobody (including many low level officials in the States) were aware it was going to be enacted in such a way as to mean that large numbers of people were going to be suddenly made ineligible for entry whilst in flight. Objectively it certainly could have been managed a lot better than it has been.
Apparently one old white guy decided it was going to happen This racial stereotyping I find poor. If I had written a short while ago when Mr. Obama was President "Apparently one old black guy decided ..." then it would have been universally derided and I would likely have been banned from PPRuNe. But it seems the unacceptability is a one-way street.
Furthermore it was not "one old white guy" who decided it. He clearly stated this was his policy, if elected, and the US electorate then went and chose him over his rival. So it was a large number of the US citizens who decided this was how they wish to be governed. And we could all see it coming.
Regardless of the media warnings many people had had transit cards/visas issued in the last two months - Genuine Question - did those who issued visas/Green cards in that time also give an "official" prior warning when handing over the documents?
This is actually how the US government has typically worked. When they decided to ban taking mobile phones into the US Consulate for (prebooked) visa interviews, it was also done overnight, without any official prior warning, to the gross inconvenience of many arriving for interviews in the days following. They terminated any "indefinite validity" visas a while ago without telling any of the holders that they had done so. They deny any rights to those who get questioned at immigration, on the spurious grounds that you have no rights until you are admitted, which the UN decried, but they just ignored that. They delight in putting anyone they are questioning into handcuffs at the first opportunity. This is all just how the US is, and nothing to do with the current administration.
Lets leave the political comments to Jet Blast. I've edited my comment.
Mr Mac
31st Jan 2017, 17:35
ExXB
In bound to Trumpland in the next week few days with my new Passport without all the "Stan " visa stamps which caused such angst before Christmas and in January with Homeland security. Hopefully the newly acquired Iranian stamp will not be an issue, I will look out for the man with the rubber gloves and water board !
Seriously do these people not realise there is a large world out there where people travel and do business. Not everyone lives in Kansas
wiggy
31st Jan 2017, 21:41
WHBM
This is actually how the US government has typically worked. When they....
Very interesting, many thanks.
Mr. Mac, you realise that the visa waiver program no longer applies to you. You require a visa. Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015
Under the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, travelers in the following categories are no longer eligible to travel or be admitted to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP):
Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited exceptions for travel for diplomatic or military purposes in the service of a VWP country).
Nationals of VWP countries who are also nationals of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria.
These individuals will still be able to apply for a visa using the regular appointment process at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate. For those who require a U.S. visa for urgent business, medical, or humanitarian travel to the United States, U.S. Embassies and Consulates stand ready to handle applications on an expedited basis.
https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html
This is not new, it was adopted by the US Congress in 2015.
Mr Mac
1st Feb 2017, 11:52
ExXB
Thank you but I am already aware of this, as I have travelled into the US a number of times post its introduction, indeed twice in the last 2 months. It one of the reasons I do not normally go there, but on this contract no option.
Incidentally I had an Iranian stamp on the old passport but it got over stamped by an over zealous Kazak official and the large lady of colour at Houston did not seem to pick up on it on my first trip back to the land of the brave after my visit, or made no comment about it anyway. However all the stans and sub Saharan African destinations caused much speculation along with monthly trips to DXB. Perhaps Houston is not as used to unusual destinations on passports, but I would have thought with the oil industry connection that would not have been the case, geology being no respecter of political correctness in my experience.
Thanks all the same