OMAAT reader Gabor shared a frustrating denied boarding story with me, and asked for my take. This is a mighty interesting one, and I’m surprised I’ve never addressed a situation like this on the blog…
In this post:
HK Express denies passenger boarding due to transit
Long story short, Gabor’s fiancée (who has a Vietnamese passport and a Hungarian resident card), was booked to take a trip on October 20, 2025, on two separate tickets.
She was supposed to fly from Osaka (KIX) to Hong Kong (HKG) on one ticket, and from Hong Kong to Doha (DOH) to Budapest (BUD) on a separate ticket, on the same day, with a reasonable connection time. She managed to check-in online for both flights, and had boarding passes and no checked bags. Transiting Hong Kong on separate tickets isn’t an issue, as long as you stay airside.
Note that she would’ve needed a visa to enter Hong Kong, but she didn’t plan to enter Hong Kong (as is the case with a countless number of transit passengers around the world every day).
HK Express denied her boarding in Osaka, claiming she couldn’t fly because she didn’t have a visa to enter Hong Kong. As Gabor explains:
First they said they need a confirmed ticket for the onward journey from HKG. When we showed the ticket, they changed their stance and wanted a boarding pass, then from that they quickly changed to that they want a Cathay Pacific boarding pass. We didn’t have a CX boarding pass, but I was thinking of buying a ticket. However, ultimately they changed to that even with a Cathay boarding pass, my fiancée was not allowed to board. (To be clear, we had a confirmed ticket and we were also checked in (QR was looking for my fiancée on the HKG-DOH plane), and also we were careful with the checked in luggage: my fiancée didn’t have any.
I tried to explain to the agent that my fiancée is eligible to airside transfer which does not require a VISA at Hong Kong Airport (according to the Hong Kong Immigration services as well). We also offered to sign a document so that we take the responsibility of all finances in Hong Kong (not that their rule doesn’t exclude them anyways). Since we couldn’t resolve the issue in time, I had to buy a separate ticket to my fiancée then I used my original ticket. (Let me say that this happened in Japan, so even though HK Express is a HK airline, the agents were Japanese, and were nice and polite. They did everything based on the instructions which they got from the HK center.)
Gabor has been in touch with customer relations at HK Express, requesting a refund of the HK Express ticket, and compensation for the Qatar Airways ticket they had to buy because of the mistake, since they had no real grounds on which to deny the passenger boarding.
Most of the communication from HK Express doesn’t really address the concerns raised, though perhaps the closest thing to a defense that’s pointed to is in the carrier’s contract of carriage, where Article 12 Section 4 states the following, about travel requirements:
You alone are responsible for making all necessary arrangements for your travel and ensuring that your travel documents are valid and that you hold all necessary visas, travel documents, medical certificates and any other documents as may be required by relevant authorities from time to time for entry into the countries concerned (including countries through which you transit under the Booking), and to ensure that you are allowed entry to the port of entry.
Now, I think that can be interpreted in two different ways, but the airline seems to be suggesting that this allows the company to deny someone boarding if they don’t have the entry requirements for a point of transit, which seems completely unreasonable.
I’d interpret this to just mean that you need to meet the requirements for transit and/or entry, based on whether you intend to transit or enter a country. But I’ll let everyone decide how they interpret that?
My take on this frustrating denied boarding situation
As I interpret things, Gabor is 100% in the right here, and this transit shouldn’t have been an issue. Hong Kong Airport’s website even confirms this should be allowed, as it’s not at all unusual to transit in countries you don’t have the ability to enter.
Now, I will say, traveling on separate tickets when I don’t have the ability to enter an intermediate country always makes me a bit nervous. Don’t get me wrong, I still do it sometimes, but I always have a slightly elevated heart rate, and wonder if something will go wrong.
It’s definitely not a best practice, because you’re at the mercy of the person checking you in. What’s odd here is that it sounds like HK Express agents in Osaka were actually in touch with central employees in Hong Kong, so this wasn’t just a rogue agent making up rules (which would be very un-Japanese, in the first place).
It sounds like Gabor has gotten as far as he’s going to get when it comes to communicating directly with the airline. In light of that, reaching out to someone who can bring some attention to situations like this is probably the best way to proceed (hi!)
We all agree that this transit should’ve been possible, right? Yes, maybe it wasn’t a best practice, but no rules were being violated, or is there something we’re missing? If so, I’ll forward it to a contact at the airline. If that doesn’t get anywhere, I think the next best option is to file a complaint with the authorities in Hong Kong. I don’t have any firsthand experience with this in Hong Kong, so if anyone has any tips or experiences there, I’m sure Gabor would appreciate them.
Bottom line
A passenger attempted to fly from Osaka to Budapest on two separate tickets, connecting in Hong Kong, from HK Express to Qatar Airways. As I understand it, this transit shouldn’t have been an issue at all, as airside transit is totally normal. However, the airline insisted this wasn’t possible, so the traveler wasn’t able to take the flight.
It seems to me like the airline was in the wrong here, though customer relations at the airline insists the airline had the right to deny the passenger boarding. What a frustrating situation…
What do you make of this Hong Kong Airport transit mess?
Unfortunately, the issue seems to be that many airlines make rules (or make decisions) that are even more strict compared to the laws of the countries they are operating in on this subject because the airlines are on the hook for fines if they transport a passenger to a destination without a valid visa. Because of that fear, I have seen some airlines be more stringent in visa requirements for passengers because otherwise the airline...
Unfortunately, the issue seems to be that many airlines make rules (or make decisions) that are even more strict compared to the laws of the countries they are operating in on this subject because the airlines are on the hook for fines if they transport a passenger to a destination without a valid visa. Because of that fear, I have seen some airlines be more stringent in visa requirements for passengers because otherwise the airline may potentially face a fine, and then that would cause the check-in agent to get into trouble with their employer. I have had issues with this on airlines despite having an onward ticket.
I've had issues with this on less global airlines, as well as Qatar Airways frequently (they just love to be strict in some stations). This has caused me some issues at check-in in countries/airports where transiting on separate tickets is less common. It is strange to me that this happened at KIX on hk express, but I can see the decision making process of the check-in agent. I agree that some sort of change is needed.
I side with the HK Express here. It’s two separate tickets.
(What I do not like is that first they wanted to see a ticket and then a boarding pass etc.)
We were considering flying to South Africa via Addis Abeba with a 4h layover. If you stay in Addis Abeba more than 12hours, a yellow fever vaccination is needed before entering South Africa.
As there always is a risk of a flight being cancelled, we decided against flying via ADD.
Buy separate tickets and get ready for problems.
If I am not mistaken, airlines will be made liable for covering the cost if the person they carry doesnt meet the entry requirements for the final destination, no? Then no surprise they enforce the rules. And for HK express the final destination was HKG…
This is absolutely standard practice. Airlines will only let you travel if you are absolutely certain to be admitted to the country they are taking you too - regardless of whether you have an onward booking. Even Emirates do this (I myself was almost at the brunt of this during Covid when I had a connecting ticket out of ICN, but Korea was closed. It needed escalation from EK head office to let me onto the flight.
The only far-fetched (and not an excuse) explanation for the agents' behavior is that, in the case of IROPS at the transit point, the passenger should be able to enter the country for a hotel or any other purpose. Even the closest Hong Kong Airport hotel is landside, connected to the terminal.
Given the number of passengers, dozens daily, sometimes hundreds, spending the night airside in HK's airport (mostly Mainland Chinese not assisted by their...
The only far-fetched (and not an excuse) explanation for the agents' behavior is that, in the case of IROPS at the transit point, the passenger should be able to enter the country for a hotel or any other purpose. Even the closest Hong Kong Airport hotel is landside, connected to the terminal.
Given the number of passengers, dozens daily, sometimes hundreds, spending the night airside in HK's airport (mostly Mainland Chinese not assisted by their airline in case of delay or cancellation), this is not a grave problem in HK. HK Immigration authorises transit without documentation. No,they clearly goofed.
If you have split tickets, you need to be able to enter each of the destinations individually, so the airline correctly denied boarding. It is HK Express' responsibility to get the passenger to their booked destination -- not to the transit zone. It is not their responsibility to figure out how the passenger is connecting, validate that the onward ticket is even valid (given it's presumably on a different airline), and to potentially get fined...
If you have split tickets, you need to be able to enter each of the destinations individually, so the airline correctly denied boarding. It is HK Express' responsibility to get the passenger to their booked destination -- not to the transit zone. It is not their responsibility to figure out how the passenger is connecting, validate that the onward ticket is even valid (given it's presumably on a different airline), and to potentially get fined for bringing a passenger to a country they can't enter (what if they cancel the onward flight and claim HK Express allowed them to board?).
This is not correct. There is no legal requirement for the passenger to be on a single ticket to benefit from the transfer regulations.
Passenger is required to fulfill immigration requirements to Hong Kong and those immigration requirements clearly state that you don't need a visa if you're connecting without leaving the transit area. There is not a single word in them about this having to be on a single ticket.
Considering HKG Airport just launched the HKIA Connects program which is specifically to allow passengers to transfer on self-connecting tickets (with partner airlines that don't have a transfer desk at HKG), you're not at all correct...
As a side note, Qatar also has a counter at the transfer area to issue boarding passes if needed.
The HK immigration site states no visa required if "direct transit by air". Unfortunately the term "direct transit" is ambiguous, but it's documented that when traveling on two separate tickets the first airline may interpret this as NOT a direct transit. A search online will show similar cases (not necessarily with HK but the same language.) It's a high enough risk that, if you need a visa except for "direct transit", get the visa if you're on separate tickets.
Can’t the two airlines just talk to confirm the tickets?
Years ago (like 2012) I was physically checking in to fly from Madrid to Prague with a US passport and they wanted my proof of a flight leaving the EU. I didn’t have it easily accessible at the time (cause it was 2012 haha) but told them I had a flight back to the States via London on x date with BA. They just picked...
Can’t the two airlines just talk to confirm the tickets?
Years ago (like 2012) I was physically checking in to fly from Madrid to Prague with a US passport and they wanted my proof of a flight leaving the EU. I didn’t have it easily accessible at the time (cause it was 2012 haha) but told them I had a flight back to the States via London on x date with BA. They just picked up the phone and called the BA check in desk to confirm it. While waiting they found my Spanish visa in the passport and realized all this was unnecessary but seemed like Czech Airlines (RIP) was happy to confirm with the other airline to meet the eligibility .
Eh, separate tickets, what are you gonna do? It's always a risk.
Maybe since I'm American I just don't understand how sterile transit actually works in practice, but I thought the entire point of sterile transit is that you can't leave the sterile area without going through a document check to make sure you can enter the country? Otherwise you're stuck in the sterile transit area? Unlike the US where you just walz out to baggage claim and ground transit?
In the absolute best light for...
Maybe since I'm American I just don't understand how sterile transit actually works in practice, but I thought the entire point of sterile transit is that you can't leave the sterile area without going through a document check to make sure you can enter the country? Otherwise you're stuck in the sterile transit area? Unlike the US where you just walz out to baggage claim and ground transit?
In the absolute best light for HK Express, it seems like they were reading the rules as conservatively as possible to avoid the tiniest chance that they'd have to take the pax back to Japan? Does it matter that much if somebody gets stuck in the sterile area for a bit?
So nobody is going to correct @Ben here?
"Hong Kong Airport’s website even confirms this should be allowed, as it’s not at all unusual to transit in countries you don’t have the ability to enter"
Airport website is not the best source nor should it be the first source for immigration related issues.
Having a US and German passport let's you take "transit in countries you don’t have the ability to enter" for granted.
If...
So nobody is going to correct @Ben here?
"Hong Kong Airport’s website even confirms this should be allowed, as it’s not at all unusual to transit in countries you don’t have the ability to enter"
Airport website is not the best source nor should it be the first source for immigration related issues.
Having a US and German passport let's you take "transit in countries you don’t have the ability to enter" for granted.
If you hold Afgan passport for example, you guess it, you need a visa to transit HKG airside. OUCH!
The snag with switching airlines when changing flights is that you can't always through check your luggage. This happened to me with a flight to the US from Bucharest. The booking was Bucharest to Stcckholm on one airline with onward travel to the US through Oslo with another. On getting to Stockholm we had to collect our luggage and recheck it, a process that took only a few minutes -- but it required entering Sweden....
The snag with switching airlines when changing flights is that you can't always through check your luggage. This happened to me with a flight to the US from Bucharest. The booking was Bucharest to Stcckholm on one airline with onward travel to the US through Oslo with another. On getting to Stockholm we had to collect our luggage and recheck it, a process that took only a few minutes -- but it required entering Sweden. Fortunately we didn't need visas for Sweden; the immigration inspector asked us "How long would our stay be in Sweden?" and we hazarded "about a half-hour". For countries like the US that are really tough on visas (like the US) this would be a problem, especially now that you have to get an ESTA even if you're from a country that doesn't need an actual visa.
(I hate bureaucracies. They're great at inventing rules but not very good at thinking through the implications of such rules.)
I appreciate that countries have laws that hold the airline responsible for incorrectly allowing passengers to come to their countries, but they should also give them the same fines for refusing to allow passengers that have the correct documentation.
As it is, the airline is better off denying, because they don't face any real penalties for this.
This is a feature, not a bug.
The immigration authorities want drive the problem of incoming passengers who are a problem to as close to zero as possible.
For any given system you can select whether its makes an error in one direction or the other, such as a number of passengers arrive who should have been boarded, but fewer were denied boarding. Or you can make it that much fewer arrive who shouldn't...
This is a feature, not a bug.
The immigration authorities want drive the problem of incoming passengers who are a problem to as close to zero as possible.
For any given system you can select whether its makes an error in one direction or the other, such as a number of passengers arrive who should have been boarded, but fewer were denied boarding. Or you can make it that much fewer arrive who shouldn't have but the only way to do that for any given system is that more are denied boarding who shouldn't have.
The immigration authorities deliberately set the incentives (in this case via punishment for allowing passengers to arrive who shouldn't have) so that airlines move the slider to the latter.
Reducing the tradeoff requires improving the system, which the immigration authorities in countries have little to no incentive to do unless they are responsive to value of having a competitive hub, airlines that are willing to spend the time and effort to do so or are willing to pay fines when they make a mistake.
@OldGuy is correct.
That's why we have this visa which dumb people claim it's not visa but just ETA.
Now they can shift the blame to the airlines and gaslight visitors.
I wouldn't have attempted with a low cost carrier, especially in Asia. I remember Matthew @ live and let's fly got burnt on this going via Vietnam
I'm surprised that in reality there isn't some discretion as on the ground in HK the passenger would have no issue but with all the nuances around bags, what to do in disruption, people then trying to cross the border etc I do have sympathy with airlines who don't allow it too!
Actually the airline has a legitimate concern but they are in the wrong anyway.
Countries can and do fine airlines that transport passengers who don't have the required documents (visa, passport or other). If for whatever reason the wasn't able to continue their journey beyond the transit point the transiting authority would put the blame on airline that transported the passenger to the transit point, in this case HK. This isn't some theoretical risk. Jurisdictions...
Actually the airline has a legitimate concern but they are in the wrong anyway.
Countries can and do fine airlines that transport passengers who don't have the required documents (visa, passport or other). If for whatever reason the wasn't able to continue their journey beyond the transit point the transiting authority would put the blame on airline that transported the passenger to the transit point, in this case HK. This isn't some theoretical risk. Jurisdictions are extremely strict and couldn't care less why or how the problem occurred (mistake in the ticketing of the onward ticket, fraudulent ticket, ticket cancelled, need to exit sterile area to obtain boarding pass). They don't want to deal with problems and the way they handle that is by making it very painful for the inward transporting airline when there is one.
So HK Express had a legitimate concern as they had no way of knowing whether the onward ticket was valid. That would explain why their head office kept changing their story, first asking for a ticket, then realizing the passenger could have bought then cancelled one, asked for a boarding pass and then realizing even that wouldn't be sufficient to keep the airline out of trouble if for some reason the passenger couldn't continue onward or had to enter the HK.
But having a concern doesn't give the airline the right to deny carriage. That would need to allowed under the Contract of Carriage which as you point out is not entirely clear. It comes down to whether HK was obligated to accept the onward ticket and boarding pass as sufficient proof of compliance with the portion of the CoC regarding necessary visas or if they were entitled to make a judgement as to whether they were sufficient.
I believe it was the latter but process has to be reasonable and absent any language as to what the airline would accept as adequate proof that the passenger didn't need a visa it is not unreasonable for a passenger to assume a valid onward ticket would be sufficient.
So then it comes down to whether the ticket was valid. The boarding pass was indicative but not conclusive however I think it was proof enough that if HK Express still had concerns the obligation was theirs to ally those by whatever procedure they presumably have in place for doing so (such as calling the onward carrier).
It is therefore the apparent lack of such a process on top of an unclear policy as to what a passenger is required to possess (a visa for the transit point when traveling one separate tickets or will the HK Express accept an onward ticket?) that I believe settles the matter legally.
While the airline had a legitimate concern they were wrong in failing to provide the passengers with concise information as to what the passenger would need to provide in order to alleviate those concerns and be considered to have met the passengers obligation under the CoCs.
The reason for the post walking through this step by step is to make plain that absent having an entry visa for any jurisdiction one is transiting a passenger is at risk of being denied carriage. That risk dramatically increases if the journey is on two tickets and rises exponentially if the tickets are on different carriers. Unfortunately for the citizens of some countries obtaining a visa for a county being transited may be expensive, difficult or even impossible.
Although it can't entirely eliminate the risk of being denied passage calling the inbound transporting carrier ahead of time and asking specifically if its an onward ticking is sufficient then having the agent notate the reservation record with what they've said and have them read back what they wrote would be strongly recommended. While the agent at check in or the head office could simply disregard what was there they likely would not and if they did would be compelling evidence for a claim of reimbursement for all costs associated with their refusal to transport.
Visa and passport rules are incredibly complex, and travellers are often at the mercy of check-in staff who may not have the full context or the authority to interpret nuanced situations. Because everything happens under time pressure, there’s almost no room to challenge or escalate a decision once it’s made.
I experienced this firsthand when my family was denied boarding on a Qatar Airways flight from Germany to Vietnam via Doha. We all held...
Visa and passport rules are incredibly complex, and travellers are often at the mercy of check-in staff who may not have the full context or the authority to interpret nuanced situations. Because everything happens under time pressure, there’s almost no room to challenge or escalate a decision once it’s made.
I experienced this firsthand when my family was denied boarding on a Qatar Airways flight from Germany to Vietnam via Doha. We all held German passports with valid Vietnamese long-stay residence permits, but my son’s passport had only five months left before expiry. The check-in agent insisted we couldn’t travel because we needed at least 6 months validity on our passports, even though the six-month-validity rule applies to tourists, not residents. We explained that we planned to renew the passport at the German Embassy in Vietnam, as allowed for long-stay residents.
Despite this, the agent and her manager refused to reconsider or seek clarification. What was most frustrating wasn’t just the refusal, but the lack of effort to understand that our case wasn’t a standard tourist entry scenario.
In the end, we had to buy entirely new tickets with Vietnam Airlines, who boarded us without any issues, and of course we entered Vietnam without any problem. I later tried to claim compensation from Qatar, but they hid behind legal jargon and avoided acknowledging any responsibility for the incorrect denial.
Unlike the issue the travelers who are the subject of this post this issue is extremely common. The best solution is to possess passports that have at least as much validity remaining if not substantially more than the most that any country requires. I strongly suggest this for all travelers.
Where this isn't possible the process is the same as in this case. Call the airline well ahead of time, have the agent take...
Unlike the issue the travelers who are the subject of this post this issue is extremely common. The best solution is to possess passports that have at least as much validity remaining if not substantially more than the most that any country requires. I strongly suggest this for all travelers.
Where this isn't possible the process is the same as in this case. Call the airline well ahead of time, have the agent take whatever steps are necessary to research the airlines rules and notate the reservation. However this will not entirely eliminate the risk as the rules could and often do change and knowing that agents are likely to claim that has occurred even when the system they have access to says you are in compliance.
As a result of this and given the modest cost of renewing passports a year early it seems a small price to pay to always have a passport with enough time until it expires that this problem at least isn't the reason for being denied boarding.
If a passenger is denied entry to a country due to missing visa or other papers, the airline is on the hook to return them back to where they came from.
I imagine that low-cost carriers are extra careful so that they don't get into such a situation.
It is more like a Japanese problem than HK express problem. The stiff EK japanese staff tortured me for hours during covid while I was travelling in first class.
This is an example of what I meant when I suggested you be a travel advocate in an earlier post. You're kind of already doing it. If you can find a way to monetize it maybe you wouldn't need to go the paywall route
The airline is correct. There multiple scenarios where it could potentially be open to fines for carrying someone to HK who has no right to enter it. Why would they do that?
Hopefully the passenger learned their lesson.
While we are on the subject, here is an idea for a new article, Lucky. Airlines that are not able to sell connecting flights (e.g. most European low cost carriers). If you buy two tickets from...
The airline is correct. There multiple scenarios where it could potentially be open to fines for carrying someone to HK who has no right to enter it. Why would they do that?
Hopefully the passenger learned their lesson.
While we are on the subject, here is an idea for a new article, Lucky. Airlines that are not able to sell connecting flights (e.g. most European low cost carriers). If you buy two tickets from them for say a Marrokesh to Barcelona to London trip and you have a British visa but you don’t have a Schengen visa, they will not let you board the first flight because you don’t have a visa for Spain.
They are incorrect if she had evidence to support onward travel to BUD, had no checked baggage and proof of residency in Hungary. If so, she should claim for damages under the Montreal Convention. It appears HKexpress were not checking correctly and using HKG as the final destination.
Can you provide more information as to how the Montreal Convention speaks to this? I'm not sufficiently familiar with that aspect and would very much like to know more.
The airline is not correct because the passenger had valid travel documents for their journey. End of story. There is no requirement for the onward trip to be on the same ticket.
How does the inbound carrier know the onward ticket is valid? Are they legally required to accept a print out of the ticket as proof? If they do and for whatever reason the onward ticket wasn't valid would that mean the authorities of the transiting jurisdiction were barred from imposing sanctions such as fines or other remedies against the incoming carrier?
Nonsensical argument since airlines already do check (and sometimes validate) "foreign" tickets when onward ticket is required. Besides, this is not passenger's concern - passenger had valid travel documents, end of discussion. There is no rule on the planet that would make them ineligible for entry.
It's not really fair to completely blame the traveler. People reading this blog either enjoy knowing about these things or feel the need to because they are frequent travelers. But its not reasonable to expect that everyone who has reason to climb on a plane understands what many of us do.
Although I agree when a person booking separate tickets ideally should realize this has side effects but airlines could post clear and concise...
It's not really fair to completely blame the traveler. People reading this blog either enjoy knowing about these things or feel the need to because they are frequent travelers. But its not reasonable to expect that everyone who has reason to climb on a plane understands what many of us do.
Although I agree when a person booking separate tickets ideally should realize this has side effects but airlines could post clear and concise requirements for what is required as far as documentation. That they don't is a reflection of the governments of these transit points finding it beneficial to not be precise in order to reserve for themselves discretion.
Nothing prevents HK immigration from implementing a policy that states so long as a passenger provides the airline with what appears to be a valid onward ticket for transport to a jurisdiction for which the passenger appears to hold eligibility for entry then the airline will not be liable. That would give the airlines the assurance they need to accept the passenger for transport so long as they present whatever documents they are told at the time of ticketing that they need to provide.
There is a world of difference to asking the airline to make a good faith effort vs requiring them to be right. So long as authorities demand the latter then airlines are going to be conservative, passengers are going to have to guess as to what is going to happen for any given flight and people who should have been allowed to fly won't be.
Suppose Hong Kong Express dealing with thousands Asian & Vietnamese passport holders requiring visa as this case transit through Hong Kong airport on different airlines and should be a massive stop and not just isolated case as this. Quite strange
HK Express is Asia’s Ryanair, I wouldn’t do this in the first place.
What is your point here exactly?
That the law only applies to certain companies?
Or is it that if you as a company already have a low reputation then you can take advantage of customers without any consequences?
Companies (like individuals) need to pay for the consequences of their actions. They screwed up. Now they need to pay up.
This is sadly extremely common and happens all the time, even with large airlines. It's a completely made up rule, only very few countries require transfer to be on a single ticket to qualify for transit exception, yet there's dozens of cases like this popping all over internet every day.
I tried to transfer airside in Hong Kong and it was a big mess (this was in 2023 with different PNR's, no luggage). I wasn't able to get my boarding pass at online check-in from Hong Kong Airlines, so I tried to get it at the airside transfer desk, but it didn't exist. Fortunately I was able to travel visa free as an EU citizen, so I went landside, checked in and cleared security again....
I tried to transfer airside in Hong Kong and it was a big mess (this was in 2023 with different PNR's, no luggage). I wasn't able to get my boarding pass at online check-in from Hong Kong Airlines, so I tried to get it at the airside transfer desk, but it didn't exist. Fortunately I was able to travel visa free as an EU citizen, so I went landside, checked in and cleared security again.
This was AMS - HKG (CX) - BKK. So I kinda get HK Express in this case, airside transfers at HKG airport aren't really a thing unless you fly CX.
I once flew LAX-TPE-HKG-NAN, all on separate tickets (JX, CX, FJ). Carry-on only, no issues with airside transfers. I don't remember when I got my FJ boarding pass for the HKG-NAN flight, though. It's possible that I had it printed out at the FJ counter/gate at LAX. And I had long enough connections and no visa requirements for TPE/HKG.
Interestingly that Qatar Airways is the onward connecting airline here (and wasn’t involved in this dispute), because QR itself is known for such shenanigans. QR is indeed very strict on denying you boarding if you don’t have boarding rights for your destination, even if you only happen to be transiting there.
I once tried to board QR’s fifth-freedom flight from Phnom Penh’s old PNH airport (replaced this year by the new KTI airport) to Ho...
Interestingly that Qatar Airways is the onward connecting airline here (and wasn’t involved in this dispute), because QR itself is known for such shenanigans. QR is indeed very strict on denying you boarding if you don’t have boarding rights for your destination, even if you only happen to be transiting there.
I once tried to board QR’s fifth-freedom flight from Phnom Penh’s old PNH airport (replaced this year by the new KTI airport) to Ho Chi Minh City. I didn’t have checked-in bags, and the Vietnamese government didn’t need a visa for transit. But Qatar Airways refused to let me board because I didn’t have a visa for Vietnam. And even after I painstakingly arranged one, the Vietnamese officials didn’t need it — it was only the QR ones who did!
@Mason/@Eskimo, you’re welcome to shoot your mouth off here too, as you never fail to do.
Wait, what? I did that exact same flight (PNH-SGN-DOH w/o checked luggage and then JFK as final destination all on QR) in February of this year and did not encounter this at the check-in counter. Must have had a terrible check-in agent.
You were flying on QR throughout, so that wasn’t a problem for you. I was continuing to Singapore on SQ, hence the trouble. Were I flying QR or another Oneworld airline on the next segment, they wouldn’t have minded.
The victim card doesn't work for you.
You're known by everyone for gaslighting Ben.
But you deserve it because you keep rubbing it in after you gaslight Ben and keep denying it.
Worst of all, you're still doing it.
Own your actions, be accountable for it.
Do you think changing your name makes everything go away?
Now. How does it feel to be gaslight by QR.
"visualise yourself with a transit visa or something of that kind! ;)
Oh yeah. How tragic.
You thought that you were smarter than the most after gaslighting good-hearted Ben.
Now you could have realized how dumb you were after getting gaslighted. But no, nothing is your fault it seems.
Sure it was appropriate that you gaslighted Ben to think that you are loyal.
Sure it was appropriate that you gaslighted Ben to change his already-booked itinerary just because you didn't like it.
Sure it...
Oh yeah. How tragic.
You thought that you were smarter than the most after gaslighting good-hearted Ben.
Now you could have realized how dumb you were after getting gaslighted. But no, nothing is your fault it seems.
Sure it was appropriate that you gaslighted Ben to think that you are loyal.
Sure it was appropriate that you gaslighted Ben to change his already-booked itinerary just because you didn't like it.
Sure it was appropriate that you gaslighted everyone every time you changed your names to rub the sh1t off.
Don't do something you don't want to be responsible for. That's what sets adulthood from childhood. Of course you should still take responsibilities when you're a kid, but at least there are some excuses for kids.
Sadly your parents seem to have missed on that mark. How sad.
Now go back and "visualise yourself successfully gaslighting everyone or something of that kind! ;)"
Qatar Airways flies to Osaka Kansai... probably the ticket was cheaper this way but obviously it wasn't worth it in the end
Is there a piece missing such as the pax had to check in luggage? (Which they would've had to enter Hong Kong to retrieve). If I was them I would've bought a HKExpress ticket (w/o checking luggage) of KIX-HKG-SGN with right of entry, and switched to QR in Hong Kong. It's very risky...
Qatar Airways flies to Osaka Kansai... probably the ticket was cheaper this way but obviously it wasn't worth it in the end
Is there a piece missing such as the pax had to check in luggage? (Which they would've had to enter Hong Kong to retrieve). If I was them I would've bought a HKExpress ticket (w/o checking luggage) of KIX-HKG-SGN with right of entry, and switched to QR in Hong Kong. It's very risky esp w/ a budget carrier to attempt check in w/o the right to enter the country your initial ticket says you're going to
@ Willem -- The email specifically stated there was no checked luggage.
sorry, my bad for not reading!
The HKExpress does have discretion to deny boarding but it’s ridiculous that they seemingly changed the requirements so many times before finally doing that…
“However, ultimately they changed to that even with a Cathay boarding pass, my fiancée was not allowed to board. (To be clear, we had a confirmed ticket and we were also checked in (QR was looking for my fiancée on the HKG-DOH plane), and also we were careful with the checked in luggage: my fiancée didn’t have any.”
There is a lot of “we” and then when it comes to luggage it’s explicitly “my finance...
“However, ultimately they changed to that even with a Cathay boarding pass, my fiancée was not allowed to board. (To be clear, we had a confirmed ticket and we were also checked in (QR was looking for my fiancée on the HKG-DOH plane), and also we were careful with the checked in luggage: my fiancée didn’t have any.”
There is a lot of “we” and then when it comes to luggage it’s explicitly “my finance didn’t have any”. Could it be that Gabor did and that complicated things, especially if they were on the same HK Express ticket?
I agree that by what is presented, she had enough evidence to be allowed to transit without issue. But just wondering if there was another trigger not mentioned.
Why do people fly these shitty airlines in the first place, and then even create such complex situations and hope for the best. They should have booked Cathay at least on the first sector, and in any case proactively address the situation, but calling the airline and having a note made in the PNR, perhaps even an explicit upfront authorisation for the checking desk (stating the conditions such as proof of ticket/boarding pass). Even with...
Why do people fly these shitty airlines in the first place, and then even create such complex situations and hope for the best. They should have booked Cathay at least on the first sector, and in any case proactively address the situation, but calling the airline and having a note made in the PNR, perhaps even an explicit upfront authorisation for the checking desk (stating the conditions such as proof of ticket/boarding pass). Even with such advance arrangement it is still hope/pray for the best, but without it is simply irresponsible. Do not book budget airlines and expect any customer service.
HKExpress and the QR ticket ex-HKG probably saved money, likely via an OTA and most travelers just expect the OTA-issued tix to work. At their own peril obv
You know, if you look at the US government, most of them are wondering why do people fly commercial in the first place, when you could have booked a private jet!
Brace yourself.
AeroB13a will either:
A) cry that this post is a clickbait since Ben didn't use SkyTrax ratings to praise BA/DL.
B) yap paragraphs with no meaning, mentioning "proletariat", ", yes?", etc.