MAN-DXB-CDG but – 6 months on passport: allowed to board MAN, stopped in DXB
Discuss today's stories:
-
(sorry for slight rehash of an earlier post!):
Some friends (UK permanent resident/3 kids on UK passports) were doing
MAN-(DXB)-CGK and were all allowed to board, but in DXB they found out
the little girl didn’t have +6 months on passport before expiry, so they
weren’t allowed to continue to CGK.That was obvs. pax responsibility, but duty of care/recourse for them not having been stopped in MAN?
They were simply left in DXB with food vouchers for 24 hours.Unfortunately I’m not sure what recourse your friends might have. It’s a rather hideous abrupt end to a holiday before it started, but that can’t really be pinned on Emirates. ‘Right to Care’ is required by statute, but only in certain circumstances and a passenger’s failure to have the right documentation is not one of those. Even if Emirates did owe a duty, it’s not clear what compensation anyone might get for failure to provide such ‘right to care’ – no sanction is provided for in EC261.
Emirates will simply say it’s not their role to act as border control. There is also some precedent that suggests that while EC261 looks at single ticket connecting journeys as one for compensation purposes, in this instance where the denial of boarding took place in a third country, EC261 may not apply – see Sanghvi v Cathay Pacific Airways [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 46
Hi Michael, what happened in the end, did they manage to get home?
Unfortunately I’m not sure what recourse your friends might have. It’s a rather hideous abrupt end to a holiday before it started, but that can’t really be pinned on Emirates. ‘Right to Care’ is required by statute, but only in certain circumstances and a passenger’s failure to have the right documentation is not one of those. Even if Emirates did owe a duty, it’s not clear what compensation anyone might get for failure to provide such ‘right to care’ – no sanction is provided for in EC261.
Emirates will simply say it’s not their role to act as border control. There is also some precedent that suggests that while EC261 looks at single ticket connecting journeys as one for compensation purposes, in this instance where the denial of boarding took place in a third country, EC261 may not apply – see Sanghvi v Cathay Pacific Airways [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 46
That’s so kind of you to provide the detailed knowledgeable answer, @JDB – I presumed there’s nothing Emirates have done wrong, but said I’d ask as they’re obviously frustrated and upset.
Hi Michael, what happened in the end, did they manage to get home?
Returned to MAN 24 hours later, tired and sad…the kids were going to their grandparents’ for 2 months…had me triple-checking all our own passports/SEA visa requirements for a fortnight’s time.
Would they not have let one parent continue with the 2 other children while the other one went home to sort out the passport (hypothetically, now, of course, and being as they planned a longish stay)?
I checked myself, I knew some countries have the 6 month rule, apparently there are 70 of them!
Would they not have let one parent continue with the 2 other children while the other one went home to sort out the passport (hypothetically, now, of course, and being as they planned a longish stay)?
I checked myself, I knew some countries have the 6 month rule, apparently there are 70 of them!
Only one parent was travelling, sadly…all I could think of was to ask them if there was a way to tie
a new outbound in with the original inbound…Ah, that makes sense now! I can imagine it being a bit of a nightmare trying to keep track of that many kids’ passports 😬
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
