Airline Wrongly Denies Passenger Boarding Over Transit Rule Confusion

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.

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.

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

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

@ Willem -- The email specifically stated there was no checked luggage.

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.

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.

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.

HK Express is Asia’s Ryanair, I wouldn’t do this in the first place.

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

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.

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

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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! 😉

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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! ;)"

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.

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.)

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!

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?

@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.

Eh, separate tickets, what are you gonna do? It's always a risk.

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 .

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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!

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.

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 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.

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.

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…

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 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.

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.

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.

No civilian can be expected to know any of this stuff. That's why civilians should avoid itineraries like this:

-dependent on the tender mercies of a LCC
-dependent on an international-to-international connection on separate PNRs

Reading the traveller's description, I get the impression he's fairly experienced. I respect his decision to avoid checking bags and it looks like he checked TIMATIC beforehand. Still, knowing that a HKG visa would protect him from this expensive fate, I'd buy one, for insurance, and failing to do it is a rookie mistake, or worse, a courageous decision. I'm not very risk-averse, but in this instance, I'd have got the visa I knew I didn't need, because HKX's behaviour was predictable.
Among my rules:

Review TIMATIC for all itineraries
Obtain VISA for all connection points, if transiting on separate PNRs
NEVER check bags
NEVER fly a LCC if a respectable alternative exists at any price.
If tempted to "economize" by flying economy or flying LCC, inhale, get two more cards, achieve the bonuses, exhale, congratulate myself.

I could be wrong about all of this.

Me and my family last December 22nd were denied boarding MIA-CDG-PVG, stating we needed a visa to go to China even though we were using the TWOV rule and had an outgoing flight booked in the time span allowed and met all the rules for transiting China without a visa. I argued vehemently for two hours and no amount of proof would allow me and my family to board. This included Timatic and the airlines own website and the embassy websites. They JUST DID NOT CARE.

This was part of a RTW Disney trip in biz class on points and miles. Long story short, eventually after much arguing after we got back from the trip and being called a liar several times stating we never showed the proof of ongoing transit from China, we finally won our case for EU 261 compensation for wrongful denial of boarding. It was peanuts compared to the cost to fix the problem they created but they finally admitted it was a wrongful denial. It was big enough story it made front page on TPG early this year.

Reminds me of a story of a guy who crossed the street when his light was green, right in front of a speeding car, whose light was red:

He was right, dead right, as he strode along.
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

The industry term for this is Transit Without Visa (TWOV). Some airlines allow it and others don't. My wife is Filipino and I am American and had a similar problem the first time we traveled from Manila to the US. I had booked separate tickets. Cebu Pacific denied boarding to my wife in Manila because she didn't have a visa for Japan eventhough there is sterile transfer at Narita. The Cebu Pacific agent and manager didn't even believe you could transfer there without going through immigration, but their contract of carriage clearly profits it.

I bought another ticket on Philippines Airlines which allows TWOV, and my wife was able to easily transfer at Narita. The boarding pass even had TWOV printed on it. In this case, Philippines Airlines does assume responsibility for the passenger in Narita if there are any issues.

Are you sure TWOV isn't for passengers who are intending to enter the country rather than continue onward without leaving the sterile area?

When the proletariat attempts to escalate a topic into conflict, one is best advised to avoid debate, disengage and ignore the gross ignorance being expressed, yes?

This is an entirely different set of circumstances from the passengers in the post but yet another reason to have a visa to enter any countries you are transiting via if humanly possible and enough left until your passport expires that this isn't an issue either.

If nothing else readers of this blog and even Lucky might consider long and hard about the consequences failing to do this. It only takes one bad experience like yours to decide it's not worth it.

For myself this meant paying for a UK ETA when we flew USA-LHR-France. In fact on the return our inbound flight to Heathrow was delayed and we missed our flight. One of the options was to fly the same day to our final destination but with a stop. The other was to spend a day in London and fly nonstop. In the end my spouse decided she preferred the former but it could have gone the other way and was only an option because we had the necessary documents.

Unless it's extremely difficult or impossible having what you need to enter a country you're transiting is well worth the time and cost to do so. It's not only cheap insurance but an offering to the Gods who decide what will go wrong. They won't get much pleasure out of someone who will thinks an unplanned overnight would be good fun so they'll go mess up someone elses plans.

There are millions of people self-connecting like this and do know about this. Why do you think no one should know any this?

I think that HK Express really does have the right to deny boarding at the transit point. Everything is good as long as nothing goes wrong but if, for some reason, the passenger was denied boarding on the Qatar flight, it becomes HK Express' problem because they allowed her to board a flight to Hong Kong without any additional transit on that ticket. I think I would probably do the same as HK Express, rather than count on another airline to make sure that we did not have a problem

QR prints this on their e-tickets:

If you are holding a non-Qatar Airways ticket for a connection afterwards, you will need to hold immigration approval to land at the final city in your itinerary that is ticketed by Qatar Airways.

For what it's worth, a few times (though not recently), when flying from Japan to Hong Kong I was asked by the JL check-in agent to show my Hong Kong ID card, as proof of my right to enter HK. When I asked what's wrong with my US passport, which was my travel document and gives me visa-free access to HK for 90 days, I was told that I would need to show a return ticket for that to be accepted. That requirement seemed to be the initiative of the JL staff, since I was never asked to do the same on other HK-bound flights.

I think the mistake that Hong Kong Airlines made was they assumed this person was going to get their bags and have to go through immigration. Maybe this clarification that the passenger didn't have any bags and didn't need to go through immigration would have helped.

My experience on ET was on a flight to Johannesburg but onward ticket to another country. I had a visa for South Africa, but apparently due to my passport, SA required that I booked a return on the same airline or so the check in staff said. They wouldn't let me board, so I booked a cancellable one way return ticket a few weeks later, and canceled after they issued the boarding pass.

I am siding with the airline here.

They have no way of ensuring the onward ticket out of HKG is legitimate & valid. People try all sorts of tricks to get around regulations, I have worked in Customer Service and seen it.

Furthermore, what if the inbound flight to HKG is delayed and the passengers miss their onward connection (with a different airline). What if the onward the onward connection is cancelled? What if for whatever reason the passenger gets denied boarding on their flight out of HKG?

In all these cases, the passenger would be stuck airside in HKG, and HK Express could be on the hook for bringing the passenger into that airport in the first place.

The airline was right to deny boarding. The passenger was asking for trouble with this ticket and isn’t owed a refund by the airline.

Countries in Europe allow transfers without a visa for the country you are transiting in as long as you stay in the international transfer area. LHR-HEL-NRT would not need a visa for Finland and HEL-LHR-JFK would not need a visa for the UK.
For some citizens a visa is needed even if you are in transit - the immigration authorities have a list (there are 12 nationalities listed for Helsinki airport for example).
It is somewhat awkward if there is a heavy delay or cancellation and you are stuck at the transfer airport for a long time. I know that at Helsinki they sometimes have to issue on the spot visas for people in this situation (eg their connection is cancelled and they have a 24h wait, otherwise they would be confined to the international side of the airport for 24h)

fully side with the airline here. The OP probably booked the tickets for his partner and then said partner was annoyed by what happened, maybe she was against the idea to separate tickets in the first place, then OP had to solve the mess and is displaying a typical case of "I am the man, my woman got bad service and now I must be angry because I got shouted at". This happens so often in service oriented customer issues and it is very, very rarely rational.

I think legally HK Express was in a contract to transport the passenger from KIX to HKG. Full stop. Therefore she needs to meet the entry requirements at their destiation. Connections of separate tickets are not valid, except if the immigration requirements state (as the only requirement) a valid onward ticket. But in this case it was a visa (plus possibly a valid ticket).

The requirement for a return ticket is indeed part of the procedure.

You shouldn't think it strange that someone followed the procedure just because others didn't. Japan is quite a conservative country in that regard.

They simply forgot or didn't ask. If someone asks you, you must present it.

It is literally impossible to read the comments now on a mobile phone because the giant ads cover.the entire mobile page.

I mean this happened at the check-in - I assume they noticed she did not have any bags. Also we are talking about Japanese people here, if they saw any chance for her to successfully check in they would surely have done so.

It is save to assume both of them where annoyed by having to book another ticket (and I assume not to fly together), but why are you siding with the airline if this is the case?
The only question that should be relevant is: Does HK Express have to allow transit via a ticket of a different airline or is it their right to enforce entry requirements if the on-ward journey is not booked on one ticket?

HK Express indeed had a contract to transport the passenger to HKG but that has no relevance here. Passenger complied with the immigration requirements which clearly state that you don't need a visa if you're only connecting and have an onward ticket. There is not a word about this connection having to be on the same ticket. OP had a valid travel document for their journey.

LOL.
No military can be expected to know any of this stuff either.

Don't you discriminate civilians.

See @Ben, and you're not going to do anything or clarify it?

Even the replies thinks not having checked bag is the what determines eligibility. Just because the wrong reasons lead to the right answers doesn't make it right.

Report it to Google.

The problem I've read the comments so far is perception.

Gabor might be 100% right.
That doesn't mean airline is 100% wrong either.

Airlines have the authority to make judgment calls. They happen to be more risk averse.
Just like referees. They're humans after all.

Is it bad... yes.
Is it wrong... no.

Now mix that with a passenger who is a risk taker.

You end up in this sad situation.

The real culprit who got away is the regulators and the government.

I bet that HK express at Osaka outsources it's checkin people. These outsourced companies do not hire good quality people in Japan.

Also this is a typical Japanese attitude. They look down on people from other countries in Asia. Espeuif they are from south Asia.

Japanese are like Germans in that they too strictly enforce rules with no flexibility. They have no empathy.

I bet HK airlines outaources it's checkin at Osaka. These outsourcing companies do not hire the best people in Japan and they hire a lot of Indians like Swissport does.

Use Brave browser instead. It will change your life.

I was in the similar situation two years ago. I had two separate tickets transiting in Hanoi, TPE-HKG-HAN on CX and HAN-IST-HEL on TK. I was able to check in online on both, getting my BPs and had no checked bags. I had no intention to enter Vietnam. However, since US passport holder is required to obtain a visa to enter Vietnam, I applied one just in case. I was stopped by CX agents when boarding on both TPE-HKG and HKG-HAN flights and was asked to show proof of valid visa for entering Vietnam. At first I told the agents I had onward BPs departing Hanoi on the same day. Both agents told me my ticket with CX terminated in Vietnam so I had to meet Vietnam entry requirements. They didn’t want to see my onward BPs but asking me to show proof of visa to enter Vietnam.

Their rule exempts them from paying compensation if we have problem because of the visa. Additionally we offered to sign a document that we take all responsibility. If she would stuck airside in HK, there were still service desks airside, so either buying a CX ticket to budapest is an option, or buying a HK Express or any other ticket to Vietnam and then travel from there.

…or move to Europe where consumers have privacy and rights and can’t be bombarded by unwanted ads all the time.

What is your point here? I already transfered in HK airside numerous time, so I know exactly that you dont even have to go close to immigration if you have an onward ticked. And as for the fact, this case - because I still used my original ticket, I did the same. Transfer with the boarding pass, no immigration. And you know, it's double standard that for me they accepted by word that I have a connecting flight (normally they should check if I have a return ticket or not).

And to be clear, I had that in mind that maybe transfer would be a problem, so before the flight, I checked the Hong Kong Immigrataion website carefully which also clearly states Vietnames citizens need a VISA always, except if the transfer is airside. Which was the case here.

Yes, we booked the ticket to travel together. I don't see why it's a problem. And you imply I am not rational. So let me quote one sentence from HK Express's reply: "Upon investigation, you were rejected to enter Hong Kong since you did not hold a Hong Kong visa." -> She didnt even get to Hong Kong. So what are they talking about?

Though I'm not asian, I have totally the opposite experience with Japanese people overall. And in this case the check-in agent was also respectful and helpful, she just did what she was told from HK Express management. She asked them how she can check the onward flight is valid, then she told the center its valid. Then the center asked for check-in proof. We showed. Then the center told, only Cathay Pacific boarding pass is ok - this point i was thinking that I buy the cheapest CX ticket from HKG to anywhere. So I asked confirmation that its ok. So the agent asked for confirmation, then the center told, even with CX boarding pass, she cannot fly. We provided everything they asked, then suddenly they changed what else do they need. But this was not on the Japanese stuff at all, the agent and the manager were both helpful.

What you say is true. Ariline have the right to make judment call. They did, and in my opinion they made a mistake. So they should be responsible for the consequences. We did not ask anything unreasonable, only the cost of the flights.

I did airside transfer numerous times in HKG. HK Express says in their reply:
"However, after our repeated checks, your flight does not qualify as a connecting flight. This means you would have been required to exit the airport's restricted area and enter Hong Kong, thus triggering the visa requirement."

Its simply not true that we would have to exit. I had the same flight, I didn't have to exit. So wouldn't she either.

We offered to sign full responsibility. And before you say its not like that, I was already in situations where this worked just fine. Once for example the Hungarian check in agent did not know a then already 6 month old rule that Hungarians can enter China without VISA for (then) 72 hours. They let me on the flight after I signed that I take all the responsibility if I am not allowed to enter to China. This was in Budapest, then I had to repeat this in London, because they didn't know either.

We offered to sign for full responsibility.

She did not have checked bag. I had the checked bag for this specific reason. And the Japanese staff was 100% aware of this. Japanese staff was more than helpful. And so, its not the wrong reason with the right result.

Ben quoted the airport website, however Hong Kong Immigration website clearly states that for Vietnamese citizens visa always required unless the connect airside. Immigration website was our primary source of information.

You are wrong, the Japanese staff were helpful, the were in constant talk with the HK office. They just did what the office told them.

You are right. WE had the same ticket, WE etc etc etc. And SHE did not have checked in luggage. I had the the suitcase checked in bc I didnt need a visa, so i could go out and manually transfer it to QR. As i did. And the HK Express tickets were also separate, not that it should count. Hers without checked in luggage, mine with.

I understand, but airlines just dont want to get into troubles. Maybe if it was the same aliance or interline, but here I would say it was hit or miss. I really frel sorry for you guys, because this is just horrible, but unfortunately this is the risk of the separate tickets

It was not really a cost issue, even this setup was slightly expensive (just 20-30 USD, no biggie). I had my HKG ticket fixed before hers, then we just tried to travel together.

I will never transit or unnecessarily purchase an itinerary that involves a country needing me to have a visa to enter. Just way too much risk. Also Qatar flies to Osaka, I would have flown to Doha direct.

I completely agree with Gabor's final assessment here as it gets to the crux of the matter.

Yes, the airlines have to wade through regulations and make judgement calls and yes, the humans who write the rules and those who enforce the rules will make judgmental mistakes on occasion.

BUT...why is it that the passenger, in this case has to pay the irritation and final cost of what is CLEARLY a judgmental error?

The passenger is incorrect! This is a self-transfer situation in which a visa requirement is always assumed. Vietnamese cannot get visa on arrival in Hong Kong. The airline did the right thing by denying her to board on Osaka. The airline is not purview to your connecting flight. As far as they are concerned, the passenger is terminating in Hong Kong.

Both of you still don't get it.
It's not an error.
It's not a mistake.
It's a bad decision.

It's like picking a meal choice. Fish or Chicken. There is no "wrong" choice. Each to their own "opinion" one will always taste better. Doesn't mean you're entitled to be compensated for choosing Fish.

Look I feel bad for you and understand where you're coming from. But airline did what they are required to.

Now I must ask Gabor, should you be responsible for the consequences of flying KIX-HKG-DOH instead of KIX-DOH?

See @Ben, people are now fixated with "checked bags".
You need to clarify this as it has nothing to do with immigration eligibility.
Don't mix interline with immigration.

You bags are not the reason of being allowed to transit without visa.

Ben should not have quoted airport website.
You are correct to seek information from immigration website.

But let me remind you just like your case, in general for every country even if the immigration website says your eligible, it's the immigration officer that determines if you are allowed to enter or not. Their judgements call, their authority. No wrong decisions, just bad or not.

Vietnam is not south Asia.
But yes, racism exists everywhere in the world. Either you accept it or be a snowflake in denial.

I completely disagree with this take. The airline was within its rights to deny the passenger boarding. Yes, the traveller had an onward ticket and no checked baggage, but HK Express’ conditions of carriage only cover them to the final destination listed on the booking — in this case, Hong Kong.

If the flight had arrived late and the passenger missed their onward connection, HK Express could have been held liable and potentially fined by the Hong Kong government.

I am not a big fan of Hong Kong airlines, but, in their defence, they have the responsibility to ensure that they don’t bring passengers into other countries illegally.
And in this case, the passenger bought a self- transfer ticket, which means they will be stuck in Hong Kong if the HK Air flight is delayed for whatever reason. With the passenger not having the right to enter Hong Kong, they will have to be deported at the airline‘s expense, and HK Air would be fined.
No wonder they don’t want to take that risk.
Note that this is very different from the scenario where the passenger has a connection on the same ticket, and the connecting airline has the responsibility to take them to their final destination in case of a delay.

It's always important to ensure you have the necessary visa when doing a non-interlined transfer (i.e. the first leg airline cannot issue your BP) even when you have no checked baggage and no intention of leaving airside. Indeed you should view being able to achieve self-transfer entirely on airside as a win rather than the default expectation. The reason is pretty obvious - what if there a lengthy delay (say > 24 hours) which is perfectly possible in a typhoon risk region - then you have to leave the airport for a hotel. Or what if there is a first leg delay and they miss their connecting flight ? Sorry but HK Express got this right.

What if the flight out of Hongkong gets cancelled? Then it is fault of HK Express that she is there in HK. HK Express will get a fine and has to transport her back to Japan.
Never, ever fly on 2 different tickets thru a country where you need a visa.

Yes. Just like AeroB13a, I am superior to all of you peasants!

Nothing. There are airside service desks, so at worst case we would have options to buy other ticket still airside. We offered them take all responsibility which would freed them of everything in this case. And you know, even if the two flights are on the same ticket - and according to HK Express, it would be ok - it can happen that the flight out of HK is canceled. Same result: pax is in HKG without a visa, waiting for a flight. In either case, the operator of the canceled flight will take care of rebooking or other alternatives. I was in HKG many times, I also transfered there many times. I know the exact options and processes at the airport, this is why we took this option. I travel a lot, so not that I had no idea what i was doing.

What you say can happen also if the connection is interlined. With interlined ticket they would be ok, but it can have the same result, pax is there without hotel. Surely you dont have to got to a hotel, its only an option. I.e one time I missed my connection in HKG and it was too late, so next flgiht was in the morning. I don't need a visa for HK, so I got a hotel in the city. Others who would need a visa but didnt have, got free lounge access. Surely airlines can solve problems if they want.

And about the delay possibility: also can happen with interlined ticket, still the same result. However we took a flight which was scheduled to land at 17:25, and the connecting flight was scheduled to depart at 01:25. Should the first flight have significant delays, there were other flights we could jump for to make it in time. And also we had QR option from KIX. You could ask why did we choose what we chose. I had a business trip, so my flight was already booked, when we bought the second ticket, so we tried to adjust that we travel back together.

I don't see how is your question is relevant. If you can turn left and right, then you can turn left and right. This is the case here. We choose between two options, both trip should end at Budapest. Airside transfer is possible, we were both eligible, I had no reason to expect that airline will deny boarding.

With your example, I am entitled to get compensation for choosing fish, if the fist i.e. too salty. Even if it was my decision to choose the chicken, it was not my responsibility to put too much salt.

And you are right, it is a bad decision of HK Express. I just dont want to take the financial consequences of someone else's bad decision. We had a contract with the airline, which they didnt fulfill, in my opinion, without valid reason.

(At the end she took the KIX-DOH-BUD, i sticked to the original ticket)

According to this logic even with a visa no one should ever allowed to flight, bc at the end the officer might say no entry. Then its still the airline's responsibility, and they have to take you back.

If you have a visa, airlines take you bc there is a reasonable expectation that you can enter.

In our case there was a reasonable expectation that we can transfer airside.

I'm a bit surprised by so many commenters siding with the airline. There is some very practical advice to be sure but if it was actual policy that you needed an entry visa even for transit then why were they able to check in online and obtain boarding passes? Shouldn't they have been stopped at online check in and directed to the counter?

Fundamentally a customer paid for a service and the provider accepted the money and decided not to provide the service because of? Of what? Fear of liability in case something goes wrong? In that case what's the issue with returning the customer's money?

Did you try a charge back on your credit card for service not rendered? The airline might ban you but so what. Doubt you'd want to fly with them again anyway after this experience.

HK Express probably got burned one too many times with a passenger denied boarding on a connecting flight. Tickets are one thing, intentions are another. That's why the US doesn't allow any transit without visa.

Chargeback is not really an option, and it would be the last resort, and only a partly solution. The original ticket was something like 150 USD for HK Express and 450 USD for QR. QR has nothing to do with this, so no reason for chargeback. Also the new ticked was issued by QR.

You deserved it. Stay in your shithole country.

What a pile of dogshit in the comments. As a Venezuelan, nowadays with almost the least powerful passport in the world (and most of the times expired or with the 'prorrogas', extension stamps that most of the civilized rest of the world don't have to understand) we are masters in this kind of transits. It's 100% the airline's fault. Fun fact: HK does allow visa free access to Venezuelan citizens. But the last time I visited with my extension stamp ('prorroga') and I was held for more than 1 hour because it was the first time they see that. And that was arriving in CX F no less LOL.