9

This question comes immediately after reading this hot network question.

I have currently no reason to think, neither I have ever checked, to be I am on US No-Fly list, which, according to the linked question, applies also to flights transiting above the United States.

I am currently planning an expensive trip to Canada from Europe, but haven't yet purchased the tickets. Actually, I also know that Canada and Unites States share ESTA/eTA information so it might not necessarily be any sort of problem with the trip.

Since the trip is particularly expensive for me, I would avoid any sort of bureaucratic problem that may lead to denied boarding or rejection at the border.

However, reading the other QA makes me extremely concerned because the OP was informed of their presence in No-Fly list only at the gate

Cost thousands of dollars hundreds of hours and and months in moral and mental pain.

Considering that sometimes people are refused boarding based on name mismatch and while redress inquiries do exist, I am still concerned about the possibility to lose thousands of euros, which are not a joke according to my wealth status.

Question

Suppose that for some reason unknown to me I am denied flying over/to the USA.

Since according to European travel laws the carrier is obligated to protect passenger from denied boarding, if I happen to book a flight that journeys above the territory of the US (something a consumer cannot easily find out and it's not his duty to find) and I happen to be for whatever reason on a US No-Fly List, and I am revealed such information only at the gate,

Is the airline obligated to reroute or compensate me for denied boarding according to EU rules (EU261)?

I repeat:

  • I have not yet intention to visit the US, maybe in the future
  • I have no record or clue indicating I could be denied flying
  • The total cost of the trip is absolutely worth being over-concerned

Research

I tried to do some research on my own

This article provides a lot of guidance. In particular, I focus on:

You won’t be entitled to compensation in the following cases as well:

  • You created or represented a health, safety or security concern

Being on a No-Fly list is surely a safety concern, but that concern is enforced by a third party national authority that does not have anything to do with my trip or the airline. The US has the right to put a ban to any people objectively deemed as a security threat, but also to people that may be unwanted because of political reasons (e.g. non-violent activists).

Community
  • 1
usr-local-ΕΨΗΕΛΩΝ
  • 4,788
  • 1
  • 24
  • 36
  • 1
    Being on the no-fly list falls under "You represented a security concern". – DJClayworth Mar 04 '19 at 22:42
  • @DJClayworth do you have evidence on that? How can a no-fly list regulated by a second country be proof of a security concern regarding the passenger? If he was traveling domestically, he would no longer be a security concern? – gstorto Mar 05 '19 at 00:50
  • I didn't say it was proof, and nor does the article say it needs proof. – DJClayworth Mar 05 '19 at 01:25
  • 1
    Not a full answer, but... Presuming you're from a VWP country, just apply for an ESTA (even if you have no intention of going to the US). If it's approved, you're not on a no-fly list. – Doc Mar 05 '19 at 02:54
  • 1
    I don't think Canada and the US share eTA/ESTA information. They do share information about people crossing the land border. And flights to Canada that poss through US airspace have to send manifests to the US, but that's a requirement placed on the carrier by the US government. Canada has nothing to do with it apart from being adjacent to the US. – phoog Mar 05 '19 at 03:58
  • @DJClayworth if you don't need proof, you could deny boarding to anyone and avoid compensation on security concern grounds. In my opinion, EU sees it as he not being eligible to fly over the US. Since there are only a few cases like that, I doubt anyone here is able to answer the question. – gstorto Mar 05 '19 at 07:57
  • The airline needs a reason to deny you boarding, and being told by the government that you are ineligible to fly is sufficient reason. The government does not need proof of anything to put you on the no fly list. – DJClayworth Mar 05 '19 at 12:53
  • @DJClayworth your answer would be acceptable if the passenger was trying to catch a flight in the same country where the no-fly list is established. How can you legally claim someone represents a security concern, if the no-fly list is not recognized in the legal system of the departure flight country? If you cannot use the no-fly list to avoid compensation, you have nothing left to present. – gstorto Mar 06 '19 at 00:29
  • Because the country of destination (or overflight) has the right to restrict who enters their airspace. If they say "we will only allow you to enter our airspace if you submit passenger lists and let us veto the people on them" that is entirely their right. The airline has no say in the matter, and nor does the country of departure. If you are flying over the US then the US has right to say if you can or not.. – DJClayworth Mar 06 '19 at 00:57
  • @DJClayworth that is contrary to European customer protection rules. European principle (IANL) is that consumers are protected when they have a contract with a supplier. The contract is "carry me to Canada". It's the airline's choice whether to fly or not over the US. It is passenger's duty to make sure he is allowed to Canada. Passenger has no due diligence over airspace bans. Theoretically - but the provided answer gives a plausible explanation to why not - the airline would either be forced to 1) reroute my flight, which is expensive, 2) reroute me to another flight or 3) compensate – usr-local-ΕΨΗΕΛΩΝ Mar 06 '19 at 08:02
  • Unfortunately I your suppositions do not tie up with the actual legal reality. Read my answer for the details. – DJClayworth Mar 06 '19 at 16:27

1 Answers1

2

Your question seems very wide-ranging, so let me try to address what is in it, including the direct questions you ask.

The no-fly list is not very large, compared with the number of people who fly in North America. The chances of you being on it by accident are very small. Of course if you know some reason why you might be on it other than by accident that's a different matter.

Flying to Canada involves you getting either a visa or an eTA. It's unlikely that you will be granted either of those if you are on the no-fly list, so if you successfully get issued one you can probably stop worrying. Canada and the US exchange security information, so if the US considers you a security threat you will probably be denied a Canadian visa.

If it somehow happens that you get the visa, while still being on the no-fly list, and you are denied boarding at the gate, then you are not going to get any compensation. Compensation is not paid if you represent a security concern, as you saw in the article. Note that it does not say "a valid security concern" or "proven to be a security concern". The mere fact that a government is "concerned" is enough reason for the airline to deny you boarding (again, remember that this is all incredibly unlikely). And airline contracts pretty much always have clauses that exclude 'government action' from the things they will take responsibility for. The airline has no say in whether they board you or not. If they have been told that you cannot fly, then if they let you board then the plane can be denied entry to US airspace. Since they have no control, they are not liable.

As I said at the top, if you have an eTA then it is extremely unlikely that you are on the no fly list. If you wish to be even more certain, then apply for a visa, even if you qualify for eTA. Better yet, apply for a US visa, even if you don't intend to use it. The US is not going to grant a visa to someone they consider a security risk.

And finally there are routes you can take to get to Canada without flying over US airspace. They are complex and roundabout but they do exist.

DJClayworth
  • 66,326
  • 10
  • 167
  • 233
  • 3
    "The US is not going to grant a visa to someone they consider a security risk." - Your confidence in my government's competence greatly exceeds mine. CBP is under DHS, but the no-fly list is maintained by TSC, which is under the FBI. These agencies have historically had problems sharing information with one another. – Kevin Mar 05 '19 at 02:58
  • 1
    @Kevin CBP does not grant visas, nor does any other branch of DHS. The State Department does that. And it doesn't take much competence to require that all visa applicants be cleared against the FBI's no-fly list. Database lookups are trivial these days, and automating them is also trivial. There are several database lookups that must be done before granting a visa; the no-fly list is just one of them. – phoog Mar 05 '19 at 05:08
  • 1
    @phoog: Actually, that makes things worse. The no-fly list is classified and intended for the specific purpose of aviation security. DHS is at least vaguely related to aviation security (and they run TRIP, so they have a specific reason to be looking at no-fly). But the State Department has nothing to do with it. They do consular services and diplomacy. – Kevin Mar 05 '19 at 06:48
  • 1
    @Kevin Believing that every department sticks strictly and rigidly to only the exact resources and duties it is assigned? Your confidence in the competence of your government exceeds mine. – DJClayworth Mar 05 '19 at 12:49
  • @Kevin exactly: they do consular services, one of which is issuing visas. That requires administering a portion of the immigration and nationality act. They have to consider all grounds of inadmissibility, not just those related to aviation security or terrorism. (DJClayworth: in other words, these are precisely among the State Department's assigned duties and resources.) – phoog Mar 05 '19 at 14:21