I have an issue with SAA airport staff who don’t seem to know how to read visas.
We deal with an oil company sending SA workers to Angola. These travellers are issued short-term working visas that are valid for seven days. Once they get to the rig the visa time is ‘suspended’. So, basically, they have seven days to get into and out of the airport in Angola, but while they are on the rig, the clock stops ticking. The difference from an ordinary short term visa is that oil rig workers will travel with a seaman’s certificate indicating that they are ‘in transit’ on an oil rig.
Last week, SAA airport staff in Port Elizabeth denied boarding to one of our oil rig passengers because they had read the visa incorrectly. As a result, our client was delayed getting to the rig.
SAA has said if the airline is unsure of something on a visa, they will deny boarding. We are saying SAA staff don’t know how to read the various visas correctly.
All visa applicants travelling to ‘difficult’ countries, such as Angola, Nigeria, DRC, Ghana, and Equatorial Guinea, are experiencing these issues because most are going to oil and gas companies or rigs. That means they are not issued with ordinary visas, but visas that accompany seaman’s certificates or temporary work permits.
SAA does not seem to have a system where staff are trained how to read visas, especially at smaller airports. Surely airlines should be getting their act together to stay in touch with this? They only have experts in larger hubs is what they tell me, but passengers in other towns are being offloaded.
It is extremely important for travel agents to be aware of the types of visas that are available and how they work, especially for African countries. I believe that airlines should be able to do the same.
This has made our agency look incompetent.
- Anonymous
SAA spokesperson, Tlali Tlali responds…
“One of our passengers was due to travel from Port Elizabeth to Luanda in Angola via Johannesburg. The passenger had purchased a return air ticket for that purpose. On the day of travel we picked up some discrepancies in relation to the dates of travel and the period for which the visa was valid. The passenger’s visa was valid from November 4 to November 11. The passenger was flying out of South Africa on November 7 and intended to return on November 14. This means that the passenger would have stayed in Angola for a period longer than his visa was valid for. There would have been risks and consequences under those circumstances, maybe not for the passengers but certainly for the airline,” he says.
Tlali explains that because airlines operate in a highly regulated environment, there is a responsibility on their part to observe and enforce laws and industry regulations of a country where the airline is domiciled (South Africa) as well as regulations and conditions of their operating permits for destinations to which they fly.
“Flying passengers who are in possession of incorrect documentation has consequences for the airlines. These are reputational and financial. In this case we would have exposed ourselves to a reputational risk of being classified as an airline that does not comply with the regulations of a country into which we fly. This would have exposed us to further risk of losing our operating licence or permit to fly into that country. In addition, there is a financial penalty that attaches to such a violation,” he says and adds that, for SAA’s part, they acted in a reasonable and fair manner.
“We noted the discrepancy and brought same to the attention of the passengers. We notified and allowed the passenger to travel from Port Elizabeth to Johannesburg whilst correcting his air ticket with his travel agent. We checked his luggage in for Luanda. The passenger was able to reach his destination. We would like to challenge anyone to show proof that the passenger was either denied boarding or delayed as a result of this incident,” Tlali says.
