Re: Electronic tickets (entry in South Africa)

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:28:38 +0100, "spizz" > wrote:

>> Airlines, BA,LH,KL are encouraging their passengers to use
>> E-tickets (electronic tickets) instead of the "old" fashion tickets
>> issued on paper.
>> I understand that, soon, BA will even charge extra to issue paper tickets.
>>
>> Have any of you had the experience of entering South Africa (JNB or
>> CPT airports) as tourist without a return ticket (a paper one, that is) ?
>> Do Immigration officials there accept a Record/locator (verbal or
>otherwise)
>> as a proof that you possess a return document?
>> AFAIK, they love a bit of paper so they can stamp it "NOT REFUNDABLE".
>>
>
>I went to Cape Town in June using a BA e-ticket and the girl at passport
>control was very confused when I couldn't offer a return ticket (I've got a
>British passport). Luckily I had printed my itinery on a bit of A4 and
>stuck it in my wallet. After a lot of confusion and explanations about
>e-tickets, I showed her the A4 and she seemed happy enough and let me
>through. In retrospect, I think if I didn't have that bit of A4 I could
>have been in for a bit of a tricky time as she didn't quite grasp the
>concept of the e-ticket system. With this in mind, I'd recomend to anyone to
>use an old fashioned printed ticket.
>
>Anyway, it's funny you should ask now as I booked again for CT just last
>week for travel in December (on BA) and I specifically asked for a printed
>ticket to be sent this time. I suppose thinking about it, if I was
>travelling on my own again I'd relish the confrontation at passport control.
>But this trip is with the family so I thought I'd best make things as smooth
>as possible :o)

This sounds very strange.

A year ago my daughter had to return to Greece (where she had been studying
for 5 years).

BA officials were reluctant to let her on the plane in Johannesburg because
they did not trust her paper documentation issued by Greek government
officials to say that her residence permit had been extended to 31 December.
Eventually they allowed her to fly, but the jobsworth at the Heathrow counter
did not allow her to board the plane to Athens, and she was stranded in London
for three days with no money.

In all this, BA made much of the fact that they could be fined a lot of money
if they arrived at an airport with passengers who did not have a clear right
to get off the plane there.

If that is so, and if many countries demand a return ticket as a condition of
entry, why are British Airways risking a hefty fine by issuing pasengers with
"invisible" tickets?

If they are so chary of accepting paper and visible documents issued by the
receiving country, why do they take an even bigger risk by issuing invisible
ones?


Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm

[spizz]

> > BA officials were reluctant to let her on the plane in Johannesburg
because
> > they did not trust her paper documentation issued by Greek government
> > officials to say that her residence permit had been extended to 31
December.
> > Eventually they allowed her to fly, but the jobsworth at the Heathrow
counter
> > did not allow her to board the plane to Athens, and she was stranded in
London
> > for three days with no money.
> >
> > In all this, BA made much of the fact that they could be fined a lot of
money
> > if they arrived at an airport with passengers who did not have a clear
right
> > to get off the plane there.
> >
> > If that is so, and if many countries demand a return ticket as a
condition of
> > entry, why are British Airways risking a hefty fine by issuing pasengers
with
> > "invisible" tickets?
>
> For a start, it's not only BA issuing e-tickets.
>
> There's a big difference between the random Greek documents your daughter
> had, in Greek (NOT getting into the long debate again) and an actual
> e-ticket. E-tickets aren't "invisible" and you are supposed to carry the
> itinerary with you.

Fair enough but Steve's got a fair point. CT passport control were quite
happy to accept the itinerary I printed out at home on my inkjet printer as
proof of return. I could've quite easily been travelling on a one way ticket
and bashed up a dodgy itinerary.

Of course BA's responsibility to let you board the plane in the first place
is another issue.

spizz

[Malcolm Weir]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:11:22 +0100, "spizz" >
wrote:

[ Snip ]

>Fair enough but Steve's got a fair point. CT passport control were quite
>happy to accept the itinerary I printed out at home on my inkjet printer as
>proof of return. I could've quite easily been travelling on a one way ticket
>and bashed up a dodgy itinerary.

And how is the passport controller to know that your first step once
in the country isn't to change the return date on your paper ticket?

Or that you wanted to buy a one-way, but a cheap return with a bogus
return segment was less money, and on your way out of the airport you
intend to toss the whole thing?

Your itinerary is just evidence that you don't intend to return, not
conclusive evidence of anything.

>spizz

Malc.

[Lansbury]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:11:22 +0100, "spizz" >
wrote:

>I could've quite easily been travelling on a one way ticket
>and bashed up a dodgy itinerary.

and a quick check on the computer would have shown that if there was any
doubt.

--
Lansbury

[mrtravel]

Lansbury wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:11:22 +0100, "spizz" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I could've quite easily been travelling on a one way ticket
>>and bashed up a dodgy itinerary.
>
>
> and a quick check on the computer would have shown that if there was any
> doubt.

Does passport control have access to airline computer records?

[spizz]

>
> >I could've quite easily been travelling on a one way ticket
> >and bashed up a dodgy itinerary.
>
> and a quick check on the computer would have shown that if there was any
> doubt.
>

Of course. But if a crumpled bit of A4 is enough then it's unlikely those
checks would be done.

spizz

[spizz]

> [ Snip ]
>
> >Fair enough but Steve's got a fair point. CT passport control were quite
> >happy to accept the itinerary I printed out at home on my inkjet printer
as
> >proof of return. I could've quite easily been travelling on a one way
ticket
> >and bashed up a dodgy itinerary.
>
> And how is the passport controller to know that your first step once
> in the country isn't to change the return date on your paper ticket?
>
> Or that you wanted to buy a one-way, but a cheap return with a bogus
> return segment was less money, and on your way out of the airport you
> intend to toss the whole thing?
>
> Your itinerary is just evidence that you don't intend to return, not
> conclusive evidence of anything.
>

Sure, there are many ways to skin a cat. I'd have said an itinerary printed
out at home for a non existent return ticket is by far the easiest and
cheapest.

When I first went to SA in 1990 I travelled to JHB on a one way ticket. I
got my girlfriend to type up a fake itinerary for a bogus overland Africa
type trip which I said I was joining in Harare the next month but that I
wanted to tour SA first. Two months later I was approved for a work permit
and working in a bar in CT.

With all of the other issues aside, not least the morality of the above
confession, i'd say the e-ticket system was easily open to abuse.

spizz

[Malcolm Weir]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:27:25 +0100, "spizz" >
wrote:

[ Snip ]

>Sure, there are many ways to skin a cat. I'd have said an itinerary printed
>out at home for a non existent return ticket is by far the easiest and
>cheapest.

But also easily checked...

>When I first went to SA in 1990 I travelled to JHB on a one way ticket. I
>got my girlfriend to type up a fake itinerary for a bogus overland Africa
>type trip which I said I was joining in Harare the next month but that I
>wanted to tour SA first. Two months later I was approved for a work permit
>and working in a bar in CT.

Precisely...

>With all of the other issues aside, not least the morality of the above
>confession, i'd say the e-ticket system was easily open to abuse.

Ah, but a quick call to the airline would trap you!

Remember, there are two quite distinct immigration stages: the first
is the simple stand-at-the-booth procedure with which we're all
familiar. The second is the "We'd like to ask you more questions
about your intentions" version where they can, and do, check up on
things like with whom you plan to stay, your access to funds, your
travel arrangements, etc.

>spizz

Malc.