Mum accused of trafficking daughter in airline blunder

In article ,
B wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:48:57 -0000, "Miss L. Toe"
wrote:

Monday, 27th February 2006, 10:02
Category: Crime and Punishment

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - A horrified mum missed her own daughter's
christening and was arrested as a baby trafficker after a blunder by budget
airline Ryanair, it was claimed today.

I don't know why this is considered a blunder by Ryanair. I think it
was a blunder by the family to ask an airline ticket clerk what travel
documents they needed for an infant. As I understand the article, the
child had no documents at all and was not on either of the parents'
passport. There has been a good deal of infant trafficking in Italy
recently and the Italian police were justifiably suspicious of a
totally undocumented baby being brought into the country.

Of course, they never should have been allowed to board the plane, but
the parents bear a greater responsibility than Ryanair in this matter.

So you can get passports for 3-week old infants?

Isn't EU suppose to be all integrated? Why require passports for moving
a few hundred miles?

Miss L. Toe wrote:

Especially:
Ryanair checkin staff - unless she left the baby with friends when checking
in.
STN security staff - unless the baby was hidden in the hand luggage.
Ryanair Boarding staff - unless the baby was still hidden in hand luggage.
Ryanair on-board head-count check staff .


Apparently she relied on Ryanair's info the second time, after already
have suffered through many hours of questioning because of "thier"
mistake the first time. Would you?

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:



mrtravel wrote:


There is no US equivalent to Ryanair.
People want cheap fares, but don't seem to understand that the price
doesn't give them the same services. If they had flown on BA, they
would have not had a problem. On the other hand, I doubt the bothered
checking the doc required before starting the trip,


Re-read the article. Apparently the woman DID "check the doc
requirements" (with Ryan's reservation desk), but was given incorrect
info. It's logical to assume that a person whose profession is dealing
with travelers to foreign lands either knows the rules or will refer
you to someone who does.


Why did she trust thier advice for the second journey?

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:



mrtravel wrote:

Fossick wrote:

You would have to advise at least a passport in every case, unless you
know differently, and few travellers know so little as to neglect to
check
with the local consulate. Even an Australian in the UK!



I would expect someone from another country to be more knowledgeable
about who to contact. Would you also rely on the airline employee to
tell you what you can bring into the other country?


Yes, actually - or at least to refer me to someone who could.

Ultimately, you are

the one that will suffer if there is an immigration or customs problem.


"Suffer", yes. Be able to claim compensation from the airline whose
employee provided me with false information? Yes, again!


As my old Marine buddy, Gomer, once said, "Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me"

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:


No, but that's not the issue. Whatever airline you use (even one BASED
in Podunk, Iowa) should know such basics as whether a passport is
required for foreign travel! No one was talking about visas, or
"permits in another alphabet" (although, SFAIK, Italian employs the same
one English does). Something so basic as whether or not an infant
traveling with it's parent requires a separate passport should be part
of the basic training for ANY reservation clerk, should it not? The
problem had nothing to do with visas or "permits", but the fact the
infant had no passport, and the reservation clerk gave the mother false
information when she asked whether one were neccessary.

The complete answer to a travel doc question isn't always that simple
The parents are both citizens of countries outside of the UK. Surely
they should have more knowledge about this than the average person.

The doc question can be as difficult as:

What documentation for child of age in days, months, years, etc who
has a parent born in Country A (and is a citizen of countries A, B, and
C, and who has served in the military of country D), and a parent born
in country E (and a citizen of D and E), and who has recently traveled
to country F, be permitted to fly to Country G, via countries H and I
for a period of enter time period?

This is NOT a simple question in a lot of cases.

In any case, she should have known she couldn't travel from country to
country with a baby without any documenation, as she did originally.
After being told by the Italians, on her first trip, that she needed a
passport, why would she rely on Ryanair's advice the second time?

In message , at 19:08:38 on Tue, 28 Feb
2006, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" remarked:
I've been in situations where someone has demanded a passport, and
got into a stalemate - until I offered an alternative ID. You just
have to know what kinds of alternate ID might be acceptable (the
people asking will rarely volunteer information about alternatives).

Yeah, but I seriously doubt whether a three-week old infant would have
a driver's license! ;-)

Yes, but they *may* have a birth certificate (although three weeks is a
bit soon to get one, in my experience, there are plenty of other things
getting in the way at that point).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
07:51:47 on Wed, 1 Mar 2006, mrtravel remarked:
I was referring to the amount of time between the first and second
trip, after she was told by the Italians that she needed to get the
baby a passport.
See my other posting. It's not clear that they said a passport was
required.

The article inferred that.

Perhaps the journalist inferred it; the article might have implied it.

Additionally, after being giving the wrong info by Ryanair for the
first trip, and being questioned for HOURS, she still chose to take
their advice for the second trip?

The "blame" for the second trip should be somewhat shared, but the first
trip's problems were caused entirely by the airline.
--
Roland Perry

"mrtravel" wrote in message
. com...
Miss L. Toe wrote:

Especially:
Ryanair checkin staff - unless she left the baby with friends when
checking
in.
STN security staff - unless the baby was hidden in the hand luggage.
Ryanair Boarding staff - unless the baby was still hidden in hand
luggage.
Ryanair on-board head-count check staff .


Apparently she relied on Ryanair's info the second time, after already
have suffered through many hours of questioning because of "thier"
mistake the first time. Would you?

Hopefully not, but we all do idiotic things at times,
Just because she might have been an idiot (at least the second time) in no
way excuses the incompetents listed above.

In message , at
08:07:41 on Wed, 1 Mar 2006, mrtravel remarked:
After being told by the Italians, on her first trip, that she needed a
passport, why would she rely on Ryanair's advice the second time?

The Italians may have said that, but we know the situation isn't quite
like that. You can enter Italy from the UK on *either* a passport, or
*some other acceptable ID*.

The list of *some other acceptable ID* doesn't include "a birth
certificate"; but to be completely accurate the Italians should have
said "don't come back unless you have either a passport or other
acceptable ID". They may not have listed what they consider "other
acceptable ID".

So perhaps the lady asked the airline, and they erroneously said "a
birth certificate is OK for a newborn infant".

[In fact, the only acceptable ID would be an ID card from an EU country;
and the UK doesn't have one yet. For the avoidance of doubt, all
residents (of countries with ID cards) get ID cards, not just citizens.]
--
Roland Perry

"mrtravel" wrote in message
. com...
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:


No, but that's not the issue. Whatever airline you use (even one BASED
in Podunk, Iowa) should know such basics as whether a passport is
required for foreign travel! No one was talking about visas, or
"permits in another alphabet" (although, SFAIK, Italian employs the same
one English does). Something so basic as whether or not an infant
traveling with it's parent requires a separate passport should be part
of the basic training for ANY reservation clerk, should it not? The
problem had nothing to do with visas or "permits", but the fact the
infant had no passport, and the reservation clerk gave the mother false
information when she asked whether one were neccessary.

The complete answer to a travel doc question isn't always that simple
The parents are both citizens of countries outside of the UK. Surely
they should have more knowledge about this than the average person.

The doc question can be as difficult as:

What documentation for child of age in days, months, years, etc who
has a parent born in Country A (and is a citizen of countries A, B, and
C, and who has served in the military of country D), and a parent born
in country E (and a citizen of D and E), and who has recently traveled
to country F, be permitted to fly to Country G, via countries H and I
for a period of enter time period?

This is NOT a simple question in a lot of cases.

In any case, she should have known she couldn't travel from country to
country with a baby without any documenation, as she did originally.



After being told by the Italians, on her first trip, that she needed a
passport,

But was she told clearly in Auusie English that she needed a passport for
the baby, or was she told in broken Italian English that she needed
documentation for the baby ?

why would she rely on Ryanair's advice the second time?

Because they spoke more understandable English that the Italian gun-carrying
authorities who had already (maybe) told her she needed documentation.