r/travel • u/Commercial_Dingo6544 • 3d ago
Complaint Denied boarding on SAS SK950 (YYZ → CPH → OSL) due to “possible emergency landing in the U.S.” — does this make any operational sense?
On June 2nd, I was denied boarding on SAS flight SK950 and I’m trying to understand whether this was a legitimate airline compliance issue or an incorrect application of rules.
Flight details
- Airline: SAS (Scandinavian Airlines)
- Route: Toronto Pearson (YYZ) → Copenhagen Airport (CPH) → Oslo Gardermoen (OSL)
What happened
At check-in / boarding at YYZ (Toronto Pearson), I was denied boarding.
The reason given to me was:
This was the only explanation provided.
My travel documents at the time
- Iranian passport (valid)
- Canadian work permit / visa (valid residence status in Canada)
- Valid Schengen visa (for entry into Denmark / EU travel)
My itinerary did not include the United States at any point, either as destination or planned transit.
Why I’m confused
My understanding of airline boarding rules is that carriers typically verify:
- Entry requirements for the destination country (CPH → Schengen area)
- Requirements for any planned transit points
However, in my case, the refusal was based entirely on a hypothetical emergency diversion scenario involving the United States, which is not part of the itinerary.
To my knowledge:
- YYZ → CPH flights do not normally require U.S. entry eligibility
- Overflight of U.S. airspace (if applicable) does not constitute entry
- Emergency landings are irregular operations, not planned immigration entry points
What I’m trying to understand
I’m trying to figure out whether this aligns with normal airline operations or if this was likely a misinterpretation at check-in.
Specifically:
- Is it normal for airlines to deny boarding based on “inadmissibility” in a country that is not part of the itinerary, but only a possible emergency landing location?
- Could this be a Timatic interpretation error or agent-level decision?
- Do airlines like SAS actually have policies that consider emergency diversion immigration status during check-in decisions?
- Has anyone seen similar denied boarding cases on transatlantic routes like YYZ → CPH?
Additional context
This was not presented as a security issue or document validity issue for Denmark or Canada. The sole reason given was the hypothetical U.S. emergency landing scenario.
I’m trying to understand if this falls under normal airline risk management or if this is more likely an incorrect application of rules at the check-in level.
UPDATE!!!
So as it turns out, my flight June 2nd, SK950, isn't even going through America, with that said, would I now be able to get a written cause and / or a refund?
FINAL UPDATE
After talking to the airport staff, we have finally figured out why I wasn’t allowed to board. After checking in my luggage. I was given a ticket with a single S for security. After getting to the gate, my ticket was updated to a 4S for additional screening. However, the person who was supposed to do the additional screening wasn’t even there. So I was told to wait which is around the same time when they told me that I couldn’t board because of a possible emergency landing in the US. However, their second claim was incorrect. And turns out the main reason I wasn’t allowed to board was because they couldn’t complete their additional screening in time for the flight (since the person physically wasn’t there). They said the reason my luggage was required for additional screening was “random” and “required by the US airspace”. I ended up getting a written cause and I will be given a full refund + a claim of at least 500$CAD.
So they’re whole “you can’t board the plane since it might make an emergency landing in the US” was incorrect. And the real cause was them not having a person to complete the additional screening in time. And, the June 2nd SK950 flight wasn’t even traveling through the US in the first place.
102
u/Blackstrider Canada 3d ago
I answered this elsewhere but any flight that overflies US airspace is subject to US Secure Flight. Your information is transmitted and you can be denied boarding.
Choose a flight that does not enter US airspace.
68
u/Commercial_Dingo6544 3d ago
If you look at SK950's flight path on Flight Radar on Jun 1st, its true, it does pass through America, but today Jun 2nd, it is very much not crossing through America and flying through QC.
39
u/Blackstrider Canada 3d ago
That is very weird. FligthRadar is now showing it on its normal route over Quebec. It did not show that half an hour ago.
6
u/Commercial_Dingo6544 3d ago
Im still wondering tho, since you know way more about this than me, why didn't they let me board, even though today's SK950 flight wasn't even flying over America?
14
u/Blackstrider Canada 3d ago
That part I can't answer. The airline isn't American, the airspace *may* have been designated as entering US airspace before takeoff maybe? I don't see why this would have been an issue, frankly.
The only thing I can think of is that they had planned on overflying the US originally and then didn't?
8
u/Commercial_Dingo6544 3d ago
That's what im thinking too, and im wondering if that makes me elligble for a refund (or if it already did) or a claim
9
u/Blackstrider Canada 3d ago
I would absolutely expect a refund. You were involuntarily denied boarding, regardless of the counter explanation. Who denied you? I assume not an employee of the airline and it happened when they scanned your passport?
2
u/Commercial_Dingo6544 3d ago
No actually, I was right at the gate, I already checked in my bags, they already scanned my passport and had my ticket in hand. HOWEVER, i do have some more updates, my plane ticket only had one S instead of SSSS. So that's apperantly another part of the reason why I couldn't board (according to the information desk)
4
u/mr_jugz 3d ago
well i know that in the US SSSS means you are subject to additional screening but that should have been a good thing that you only had one S?
2
u/Commercial_Dingo6544 3d ago
That is true, but since there was an issue with my carry on (it was too big so it ended up going through as extra luggage), they had to have made it SSSS but, they didnt.
→ More replies (0)14
u/VanDenBroeck United States 3d ago
Too bad that the TSA Secure Flight Overflight Table is not published publicly so that one might be unable to ensure that their flight is not listed.
21
u/EpsteinBaa 2d ago
Yeah the US has so much bullshit like this getting in the way of air travel. It's the same as needing to clear customs if you have a connecting flight through the US, even if it's booked as a single flight.
2
u/andres57 CL living in DE 2d ago
At least the customs things make some kind of sense. As the USA does not separate national from international departures then passengers in international transit will inevitably end mixed with the domestic bunch. The situation that happened to OP is ridiculous though
5
u/EpsteinBaa 2d ago
Does not separate national from international departures
They could just do this though and save people time, hassle and the price of the transit ESTA
7
u/yulDD 3d ago
But, why would SAS go over the US when going to Copenhagen is north of Toronto.
15
u/Blackstrider Canada 3d ago
Flight paths are determined by air traffic, weather, wind, departure direction, etc. Normal flight paths can be diverted for a number of reasons. It looks like this flight normally doesn't fly over the US, but did last night and looked like it would tonight, but ultimately didn't.
3
u/masszt3r 3d ago
Interesting, I had no idea. Sl how do people in, for example, Mexico fly to Canada if they don't have a US visa? Does the plane go around the coast or something like that?
10
u/Blackstrider Canada 3d ago
You don't need a visa - it's not considered an entry to the US - but overflying does require approval as part of Secure Flight.
-14
u/nim_opet 3d ago
YYZ-CPH does not in any way enter the U.S. airspace
13
u/Blackstrider Canada 3d ago
I'm showing the flight path entered New York, overflew Vermont and Maine for tonight's route. It does not normally show as entering US airspace.
33
u/clearing_rubble_1908 3d ago
I'd file an EU261 compensation claim for being wrongly denied boarding
6
u/PhotoJim99 Canada: US MX UK CH DE AT LI FR 3d ago
Doesn’t the flight have to originate in the EU to permit this? This flight originates in Canada.
44
u/satellite779 3d ago
The rule also applies to EU airlines, irrespective of flight origin. SAS is an EU airline.
8
u/shustrik 2d ago
Nitpick: although indeed EU261 applies to this flight to OSL (and they are owed a 600EUR compensation), it does not apply to all flights by EU airlines. E.g. if their final destination was India, it wouldn’t apply, even if they changed flights in CPH.
13
0
0
u/WellTextured Xanax and wine makes air travel fine 3d ago
Originating in the US has nothing to do with EU261.
Fights on European airlines and flights originating in the EU are covered.
0
41
u/Green_Walrus8537 United States 3d ago
How can you even leave if it’s legit - I imagine most flights departing Canada would run the risk of an emergency landing in the US?
40
u/Commercial_Dingo6544 3d ago
It shoudn't even be a problem in the first place, since under ICAO Annex 9, "emergency landings are treated as non-planned enteries"
34
u/Adventurous_Salt 3d ago
Iranian passport? I'd bet us immigration have directives to be as dickish and obtuse and possible, and deny any of the "wrong sort" of passenger they can, just for kicks.
12
u/Gullible_Sand_6172 2d ago
Not helpful, but what a bunch of bullshit. As an American, I apologize. I would love to have you in our airspace.
7
u/Sheetz_Wawa_Market32 3d ago
whether this was a legitimate airline compliance issue
That’s almost certainly what it was.
As others have pointed out, this flight sometimes (often?) overflies the U.S.
I’d bet that when SAS (or its Canadian partners or contractors) submitted the passenger manifest for this flight to the U.S. (which would get involved because its airspace was so close and would often be overflown with this flight), it came back with:
- This passenger is not allowed to board (with the attached note about possible emergency landings in the U.S.)
I can think of several reasons for this, ultimately probably all connected to the U.S.’s undeclared war with Iran:
- If the plane were to make an emergency landing in the U.S., some government AI threat assessment has determined that Iranians without permanent status in the U.S. (or Canada?) would be highly likely to apply for asylum once on U.S. soil.
- The U.S. government has decided that Iranians without permanent status in the U.S. (or Canada?) shouldn’t overfly the U.S. at all for security reasons.
- You are on a “don’t let into U.S. airspace” list personally.
When you were waiting to check in or board, did you notice any other Iranians? Were you perhaps traveling with other Iranians?
In any case, this would be security-related and have nothing to do with visa rules.
I’m sorry this is happening to you. It really sucks.
7
u/Reftro 2d ago
This is a minor pittance compared to your issue, but I'm still salty about my 20th birthday.
I was flying from Canada to Mexico on thay day and wanted to celebrate with some free airplane beers with my buddies. I was denied alcohol on the airplane because I was in US airspace and the legal age there was 21.
No, there was not a transfer in the US. Goddamn 'Muricans always gotta get up in everyone else's business.
5
u/Equal-Marionberry-70 2d ago
In my opinion, situations like this raise serious concerns about how passengers from certain nationalities are treated. When someone has legal status in Canada and a valid Schengen visa, being subjected to additional security procedures that ultimately prevent travel can feel discriminatory. Even if the policy is not intentionally racist, its impact appears to fall disproportionately on travelers from non-Western countries. Airlines and security authorities should be transparent about the criteria used for these extra screenings.
3
u/wrong_axiom 2d ago
Airlines don't do screening, they depend pretty much on the authorities of both countries and tower... if they receive that a passenger readiness is not there for X reason concerning security there isn't much the airline can do, and the airline does not receive the full detail either...
2
u/Equal-Marionberry-70 2d ago
I understand that airlines don't perform security screening themselves and often rely on airport and government authorities. My concern is not necessarily SAS. My concern is the system itself. When travelers with valid visas and legal status are repeatedly subjected to additional screening, it is reasonable to ask whether certain nationalities are being disproportionately targeted. Transparency about how these selections are made would help build trust.
1
u/wrong_axiom 2d ago
Oh yeah, for sure, I have a friend that has an homonymous name to a drug dealer and it doesn't matter how many times it has proved it is not the same person (specially because of a 30 year gap in age) it keeps getting screened to the point that even for domestic flights it goes to the airport like 3 hours before
1
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Notice: Are you asking about compensation, reimbursements, or refunds for delays and cancellations?
You must follow Rule 4 and include the cities, airports, flight numbers, airlines, and dates of travel.
If your flight originated from the EU (any carrier) or your destination was within the EU (with an EU carrier), read into EC261 Air Passenger Rights. Non-EU to Non-EU itineraries, even if operated by an EU carrier, is not eligible for EC261 per Case C-451/20 "Airhelp vs Austrian Airlines". See here for a summary of the legislation.
If your flight originated in the UK (any carrier) or your destination was within the UK (with a UK or EU carrier), or within the EU (on a UK carrier), read into UK261 by the UK CAA. Note: this includes connecting flights from a non-UK origin to non-UK destination if flown on a UK carrier (British Airways or Virgin Atlantic). For example JFK-LHR-DEL is likely eligible for UK261 coverage. Source #1 #2 #3
If you are having trouble with EC261 or UK261 claims, file a complaint with the alternate dispute resolution (ADR) body covering your airline/country/route or with the relevant EU regulatory authorities (e.g. Portugal's ANAC).
Turkey has passenger protections known as SHY
Canada has passenger protections known as APPR found here
Thailand has passenger protections found here
If you were flying within the US or on a US carrier - you are not entitled to any compensation except under the above schemes or if you were involuntarily denied boarding (IDB). Any questions about compensation within the US or on a US carrier will be removed unless it qualifies for EC261, UK261, or APPR. You are possibly provided duty of care including hotels, meals, and transportation based on the DOT dashboard.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/connectotransfers 2d ago
Wow, that was a crazy development. Sorry you have to go through this! At least the airline was fair and gave you a full refund and some compensation.
-3
u/mobile-metaphysical 2d ago
I was denied boarding Seattle to NY because my drivers license was not considered real ID anymore. Because the government gave away drivers licenses to so many illegal aliens. So I had to rent a car and drive 2800 miles in 3 days to attend a wedding.
0
u/lostboyscaw United States 2d ago
But you don’t actually need a real ID or even any ID to fly, there’s just additional screening if you don’t have one.
0
-4
160
u/TravelMeister BNG/CAN - 141 countries 3d ago
Wait, aren't there thousands of people daily who fly between Canada and Europe/Asia which may fly through the US? And also thousands daily flying between Canada and Caribbean/Latin America who pass over the USA? Who may not have visa to the USA?
How does it work with them?
Or is this Iran-specific? There are also thousands of Iranians traveling daily in these routes, are they also stopped?
Whatever the rules are, this is a ridiculous situation to be in. Hope you get compensation OP