|
Hi Everyone,
Looking for a professional law firm or attorney that handles
passenger-airline cases? It is about about an incident that happened
in O'Hare Chicago Airport.
Any lead would be greatly appreciated indeed.
Regards,
Mike
mas_it_2000@yahoo.com
|
| |
| |
Michael wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Looking for a professional law firm or attorney that handles
passenger-airline cases? It is about about an incident that happened
in O'Hare Chicago Airport.
You're still not being specific enough to identify
the type of lawyer required. If you were to name
the airline (assume you are the "passenger"), you could
look for Chicago-area lawyers who do not represent that
airline (if any).
|
| |
| |
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<4124FB14.6F220782@sprintmail.com>...
Michael wrote:
You're still not being specific enough to identify
the type of lawyer required. If you were to name
the airline (assume you are the "passenger"), you could
look for Chicago-area lawyers who do not represent that
airline (if any).
Airlines involved: X, Y (Y is a forign airline)
Trip Rout: Detroit-Chicago-London-Cairo then back same way to Detroit
Passengers: Sally (2 years old, US-born), Mah (5 month old, US-born)
They boarded with their Mom in Detroit airport where X checked their
luggage and put Cairo label on each, and their travel documents were
okayed. In Chicago airport, X checked again travel documents before
boarding on a different airplane to London (still same X airline).
In the way back from Cairo, Y airline requested the US-born kids to
have US passports so they were NOT allowed on board.
Y airline claimed it is USA rules, X airline claimed the US-born kids
have the right documents to be allowed to travel overseas with their
Mom. In words, X airline did nothing wrong!
Questions:
1)How come a foriegn airline knows USA travel rules while a USA
airline doesn't?
2)Shouldn't X airline be hold responsible for allowing the US-born
kids to travel abroad without US passports?
Regards,
Mike
|
| |
| |
Michael wrote:
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<4124FB14.6F220782@sprintmail.com>...
Airlines involved: X, Y (Y is a forign airline)
Trip Rout: Detroit-Chicago-London-Cairo then back same way to Detroit
Passengers: Sally (2 years old, US-born), Mah (5 month old, US-born)
They boarded with their Mom in Detroit airport where X checked their
luggage and put Cairo label on each, and their travel documents were
okayed. In Chicago airport, X checked again travel documents before
boarding on a different airplane to London (still same X airline).
In the way back from Cairo, Y airline requested the US-born kids to
have US passports so they were NOT allowed on board.
Y airline claimed it is USA rules, X airline claimed the US-born kids
have the right documents to be allowed to travel overseas with their
Mom. In words, X airline did nothing wrong!
Questions:
1)How come a foriegn airline knows USA travel rules while a USA
airline doesn't?
2)Shouldn't X airline be hold responsible for allowing the US-born
kids to travel abroad without US passports?
You need a US immigration lawyer to determine if X airline is
correct. (Although -- having the documents required to leave
the country does NOT guarantee having the documents required
to return.)
If "X" is correct, you may have a claim against "Y" in Cairo.
If "Y" is correct, you might have a claim against X. I think
you've given enough information so that a lawyer could determine
whether he could take the case.
It IS possible that they're both correct, and the the rules
changed while you were outside the country. I think your claim
would still be against "Y" in that case.
|
| |
| |
"Michael" wrote:
. . . In the way back from Cairo, Y airline requested the
US-born kids to have US passports so they were NOT allowed
on board.
Did this situation, by any chance, involve the parents attempting to
invoke the passport exemption in 22 CFR 53.2(f) -- a US State Dept.
regulation pertaining to foreign travel by US citizens?
This is the provision under which a child with US citizenship, who
is under 12 years of age and is included in the foreign passport
of a parent who is not a US citizen, may enter the US without a US
passport, provided other evidence of the child's US citizenship is
provided (e.g., a birth certificate showing the child was born in
the US).
If the problem involved this particular provision, then the people
from Airline "Y" might not have been convinced that the children's
birth certificate would be accepted as proof of their US citizen-
ship when the family arrived in the US.
It's even possible that Airline "Y" might have had trouble with
this provision in the past, and the airline's upper management may
have decided to play it safe and refuse to accept passengers via
this particular regulation.
Or, perhaps the children had their own individual foreign passports
instead of being listed as dependents in a parent's passport. For
better or worse, the US regulation in question clearly states that
it applies =only= when a child is included in a parent's foreign
passport; this may not make sense (since it's much less common now
than it used to be for children to be listed in a parent's passport,
as opposed to having their own passports), but -- unfortunately --
there's no overarching law requiring government regulations to make
sense. :-{
And, of course, it's possible (not likely, but possible) that the
employees of Airline "Y" might simply have been ignorant of 22 CFR
53.2(f).
FWIW, I've been told of cases where one European-based airline
refused to allow US-born children, whose parents were citizens of
India, to board flights to the US on the basis of 22 CFR 53.2(f),
and the parents were given no choice but to make an emergency trip
to a US consulate in order to get US passports for their children
(which, in turn, was a violation of a prohibition India had at the
time against dual citizenship or dual passports, even for children,
but the airline in question refused to care about that issue).
1) How come a foreign airline knows USA travel rules while
a USA airline doesn't?
This actually does make a great deal of sense.
An airline flying people into the US is required, by the US,
to make reasonably sure that everyone on the plane has valid
travel documentation which will allow them to enter the US.
If a passenger is found not to be admissible by US immigration
officials, the airline can be fined, and also forced to take the
person back on the next flight out (regardless of whether the
airline can manage to collect the extra expenses involved from
the errant passenger or not).
Thus, it is definitely in the interest of foreign airlines to
make very sure that they don't run afoul of US immigration laws,
and to screen would-be passengers carefully to make sure they
really do have acceptable documents before allowing them to
board.
If the employees of Airline "Y" were not convinced that the
children's travel documents would be accepted, I doubt they
(or the airline) could be held legally liable for refusing to
let the children on the plane. If Airline "Y" were negligently
ignorant of the regulation in question, that might possibly
make a difference, though I would still doubt it.
2) Shouldn't X airline be held responsible for allowing
the US-born kids to travel abroad without US passports?
I don't see how. As long as Airline "X" was satisfied that the
family would be allowed to enter their initial destination, it
wouldn't make any financial difference to Airline "X" whether
or not the family had proper travel documents to enter the US.
Also, if the family did have proper documents under the afore-
mentioned regulation, Airline "X" could very possibly have been
justified in assuming all would be well when the family tried
to return. They might not know -- and, IMHO, couldn't really
be expected to know -- whether the employees of Airline "Y"
might choose to be overly strict, or simply turn out to be
ignorant.
Rich Wales richw@richw.org http://www.richw.org
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. My comments are for discussion
purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon as legal or
professional advice.
|
| |
| |
richw@richw.org (Rich Wales) wrote in message news:<20040824175916.V68965.richw@whodunit.richw.org>...
"Michael" wrote:
Did this situation, by any chance, involve the parents attempting to
invoke the passport exemption in 22 CFR 53.2(f) -- a US State Dept.
regulation pertaining to foreign travel by US citizens?
This is the provision under which a child with US citizenship, who
is under 12 years of age and is included in the foreign passport
of a parent who is not a US citizen, may enter the US without a US
passport, provided other evidence of the child's US citizenship is
provided (e.g., a birth certificate showing the child was born in
the US).
If the problem involved this particular provision, then the people
from Airline "Y" might not have been convinced that the children's
birth certificate would be accepted as proof of their US citizen-
ship when the family arrived in the US.
It's even possible that Airline "Y" might have had trouble with
this provision in the past, and the airline's upper management may
have decided to play it safe and refuse to accept passengers via
this particular regulation.
Or, perhaps the children had their own individual foreign passports
instead of being listed as dependents in a parent's passport. For
better or worse, the US regulation in question clearly states that
it applies =only= when a child is included in a parent's foreign
passport; this may not make sense (since it's much less common now
than it used to be for children to be listed in a parent's passport,
as opposed to having their own passports), but -- unfortunately --
there's no overarching law requiring government regulations to make
sense. :-{
And, of course, it's possible (not likely, but possible) that the
employees of Airline "Y" might simply have been ignorant of 22 CFR
53.2(f).
FWIW, I've been told of cases where one European-based airline
refused to allow US-born children, whose parents were citizens of
India, to board flights to the US on the basis of 22 CFR 53.2(f),
and the parents were given no choice but to make an emergency trip
to a US consulate in order to get US passports for their children
(which, in turn, was a violation of a prohibition India had at the
time against dual citizenship or dual passports, even for children,
but the airline in question refused to care about that issue).
This actually does make a great deal of sense.
An airline flying people into the US is required, by the US,
to make reasonably sure that everyone on the plane has valid
travel documentation which will allow them to enter the US.
If a passenger is found not to be admissible by US immigration
officials, the airline can be fined, and also forced to take the
person back on the next flight out (regardless of whether the
airline can manage to collect the extra expenses involved from
the errant passenger or not).
Thus, it is definitely in the interest of foreign airlines to
make very sure that they don't run afoul of US immigration laws,
and to screen would-be passengers carefully to make sure they
really do have acceptable documents before allowing them to
board.
If the employees of Airline "Y" were not convinced that the
children's travel documents would be accepted, I doubt they
(or the airline) could be held legally liable for refusing to
let the children on the plane. If Airline "Y" were negligently
ignorant of the regulation in question, that might possibly
make a difference, though I would still doubt it.
I don't see how. As long as Airline "X" was satisfied that the
family would be allowed to enter their initial destination, it
wouldn't make any financial difference to Airline "X" whether
or not the family had proper travel documents to enter the US.
Also, if the family did have proper documents under the afore-
mentioned regulation, Airline "X" could very possibly have been
justified in assuming all would be well when the family tried
to return. They might not know -- and, IMHO, couldn't really
be expected to know -- whether the employees of Airline "Y"
might choose to be overly strict, or simply turn out to be
ignorant.
Rich Wales richw@richw.org http://www.richw.org
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. My comments are for discussion
purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon as legal or
professional advice.
More information about this:
1)Same round trip was made a year earlier using Z airline with NO
problem whatsoever. For your information, Z was a foriegn airline too
like Y airline.
2)To save my wife the trouble of taking care of two babies along a
very long flight with alot of waitings at different airports, I flew
to Cairo so we can come back all together. We headed to Ciaro airport,
checked our luggage and travel documents. There, Y airline came with
that problem. An employee of Y airline claimed this: "Usually, when a
baby is born in the USA he or she gets a US passport mailed to
parents!" I responded: "We haven't seen this actually so we don't know
where are you getting your information from?" The kids have their
original US birth certificates and are registered lawfully in their
Mom passport.
So, I had to leave alone back to the US leaving wife and my two
US-born kids. The US embassy, within a week, issued two US passports
for the kids! When my wife went to Y airline to re-book for coming
back, Y airline informed her that there is NO vacancy for 4 month;
till December. My wife got shocked and I was about to explode!! For
information, as a result of all this, my youngest baby boy missed 2-3
vaccinations and we both were worried and very concerened among other
things.
I emailed the US embassy with the news and urged the Council to do
something with Y airline. Next day, Y airline contacted my wife and
put them on its 1st flight to the US through a European capital!!!
3)It was a nightmare to all my family and myself; aside from the
losses and risks we all went through!
My wife and the kids arrived early this morning; Aug. 26, 2004. My
whole family were direct victims of both X and Y airlines!
Regards,
Mike
|
| |
| |
"Michael" wrote:
More information about this: . . .
OK, it appears (from reading between the lines) that:
(1) You are a US citizen.
(2) Your wife is not a US citizen, but is a citizen of some other
country (I'll guess Egypt, since you were flying to/from Cairo;
if I'm mistaken and her country of citizenship is something
other than Egypt, the rest of what I've written below should
still apply if "Egypt(ian)" is corrected as appropriate).
(3) Your children are citizens of both the US (because they were
born in the US) and Egypt (on account of your wife's citizenship
in that country).
(4) Your children are listed as dependents in your wife's Egyptian
passport.
(5) Your children do not have US passports.
(6) You and your wife brought your children's birth certificates
(showing they were born in the US) on the trip with you, in the
expectation that you would be able to bring the children back
to the US on the strength of the birth certificates plus their
being listed in your wife's Egyptian passport.
In other words, you were depending on the State Dept. regulation I
quoted in my previous posting -- and the basis of your complaint
against airline Y is that they refused to allow your children to
board a US-bound flight, even though they had documentation which
was sufficient according to US rules.
Given this, I believe my earlier comments are relevant; I trust you
can reread them, so I won't repeat them.
Same round trip was made a year earlier using Z airline
[another foreign airline, just like Y] with NO problem
whatsoever.
I'm glad to hear that. However, I doubt it would have made any
difference to airline Y or its employees, even if you had mentioned
it at the time.
An employee of Y airline claimed this: "Usually, when
a baby is born in the USA he or she gets a US passport
mailed to parents!"
This employee was, clearly, badly misinformed. Oh, well.
My wife and the kids arrived early this morning; Aug. 26,
2004. My whole family were direct victims of both X and Y
airlines!
Your family may very possibly have been the victims of overcautious-
ness on the part of airline Y and its employees. Or, airline Y and
its employees might simply have been inexcusably ignorant of US
immigration rules in general, and 22 CFR 53.2(f) in particular.
I still don't see any basis whereby airline X could be held liable
-- any more than, say, airline Z could be held liable because they
allowed you to fly using this same documentation last year.
was a nightmare to all my family and myself; aside from
the losses and risks we all went through!
I'm not, by any means, trying to minimize the validity of your
complaint.
If you really, really feel you are entitled to be compensated for
your losses by airline Y -- either through their good will, or else
by getting the courts to force them to pay you -- I would strongly
suggest you discuss the matter with a lawyer (preferably one who is
familiar with international air transport law =and= US immigration
law). Be sure the lawyer can confirm that you did, in fact, have
sufficient documentation for your children to travel to the US
without US passports. If a lawyer agrees to write a letter to
airline Y on your behalf, I would assume he/she would want to cite
22 CFR 53.2(f) explicitly.
Of course, unless your losses were major, I imagine it would end up
costing you more in legal fees than you could ever hope to get back
through the courts. Also, it's quite possible (I don't know for
sure, I'm just guessing) that some international agreement regulating
international air transport (such as the Warsaw Convention which
limits airlines' liability in case you sustain any sort of loss on
an international flight) might impose a limit on what you could get
from airline Y for their refusal to accept your wife and children
as passengers. Again, if you're going to go this route, you really
need to talk to a lawyer who is familiar with this kind of thing.
Regrettably, I don't know anyone in particular to refer you to.
Rich Wales richw@richw.org http://www.richw.org
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. My comments are for discussion
purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon as legal or
professional advice.
|
| |
| |
|
