Fit to fly 'scam'?

Spendless

Pollycat said:

michael1234 said:

I agree with the original poster. The hugely complex framework of what is required and when encourages people to spend more than they need on tests they don't need.

There are only a handful of airlines covering the vast majority of routes. The other answers imply that some of them impose their own testing requirements in addition to the rules in the destination country. Are there any examples of that ? I don't think there are....

Conversely Ryanair themselves require facemasks regardless  of rules in the destination country (e.g. UK) but whilst a covid requirement it isn't an additional testing requirement,

To me, it's a similar situation to immigration rules.

The responsibility with that sits squarely with the traveller.

As should ensuring you have the appropriate covid tests and documentation.

My answer doesn't imply anything.

Other than I do not see this as a scam.

I struggled to get my head round it all and have not been anywhere. Was trying to help 18yo daughter and her boyfriend on their first holiday without parents understand it. It took several queries to my sister (a more seasoned traveller) and a few questions on here, to which I got some helpful replies and a handful of opinions on a question I hadn't asked (which is par for the course on here, I've been on this site long enough to know this). 

Daughter missed being double jabbed by 2 weeks as she was an early call up from our Drs (no idea why). Ironically she'd have been ok if she hadn't slightly delayed the first jab but she did that as she was about to do her final marked project at college and was worried she'd have a reaction and not be able to attend ( a drama course, so she needed to be physically there, she couldn't just submit work on-line). It has cost us £235 in tests, including a day 5 test to release, so she could end quarantine early as she is taking an exam that carries UCAS points this weekend. There shouldn't have been a clash with dates, but their flights got cancelled 3 times. We also contributed £115 towards boyfriend's tests as I could see he was shocked by how many tests they needed and the price. Ok, not every test we got them was the cheapest going, some we had to go for which was the best practical option too.  They're teenagers in small part time jobs and have had their earnings affected by the lockdowns, which is why bank of parents stepped in to help. None of this was anticipated when they booked their hol 12 months ago and did so because I told them to put it off till this year, they wanted to go last summer, I talked them out of it! 

I fully expect at some point we will hear that a Tory Minister's mate holds the contract for some of these tests and/or that they have shares  in the companies concerned. 

Pollycat

Spendless
I'm not disputing that requirements are changing quickly - and often with little notice.
I'm not disputing that the tests are expensive and - from what I've read - providers sometimes fail to meet deadlines.
I'm not disputing that the cost of tests hit people on low incomes with families and young people - like your daughter - very hard.

I last booked a holiday in September 2019 - to depart June 2020.
I've still not taken that holiday, it was deferred to June 2021 and again to June 2022.
I would not have considered booking a holiday after the seriousness of the situation became clear in mid March 2020.
And that's someone who usually - pre-covid - took 3 or 4 holidays a year.
But that's me and I appreciate other people may be less risk-averse or more desperate for a holiday.

I've been used to applying for visas for all sorts of different countries - going back to when India insisted on payment by postal order.

My post that you quoted was in response to someone who said " for these testing center's to pressure customers and scare them into paying for additional documentation that isnt needed."

Even if a tour operator told I needed (or didn't need) a visa, I wouldn't take their word for it.
I would check for myself.
If a test provider told me I needed 'whatever', I wouldn't take their word for it.
I would check myself (or be in possession of the facts before I contacted them).

Sandtree

prt20 said:

Ok so perhaps the use of the word 'scam' is a little too much which folks seem to be focusing on. 

What I meant to convey is I just felt like there's a huge potential for people to be mis-sold or pressure sold additional services that are not needed. 

No where does it state that a 'fit to fly' certificate is needed on Ryanair or Italian government sites (other countries may be different) . Only a proof of test is required from an external party other than yourself (hence no test at home kits) 

@samdtree actually a fit to fly certificate is old wording used to qualify whether someone with an illness is allowed to fly by medical staff such as late stage pregnancy etc, this was around before covid, and to me is now being used to upsell additional services. 

Frankly. In general it's all just very confusing! 

I agree traditionally this is what it was but language evolves with time and whilst I cannot comment for the Italian Government website nor Ryanair's the UK government website did, until its refresh yesterday, explicitly ask for a "certificate" of the test results.  Providers therefore mirror governmental language however with latflow tests its particularly important to distinguish between those self test at home with no formal results and those where you get a documented result... not aware of any country thats accepting undocumented test results and taking it on faith alone.

Spendless

Pollycat said:

Spendless
I'm not disputing that requirements are changing quickly - and often with little notice.
I'm not disputing that the tests are expensive and - from what I've read - providers sometimes fail to meet deadlines.
I'm not disputing that the cost of tests hit people on low incomes with families and young people - like your daughter - very hard.

I last booked a holiday in September 2019 - to depart June 2020.
I've still not taken that holiday, it was deferred to June 2021 and again to June 2022.
I would not have considered booking a holiday after the seriousness of the situation became clear in mid March 2020.
And that's someone who usually - pre-covid - took 3 or 4 holidays a year.
But that's me and I appreciate other people may be less risk-averse or more desperate for a holiday.

I've been used to applying for visas for all sorts of different countries - going back to when India insisted on payment by postal order.

My post that you quoted was in response to someone who said " for these testing center's to pressure customers and scare them into paying for additional documentation that isnt needed."

Even if a tour operator told I needed (or didn't need) a visa, I wouldn't take their word for it.
I would check for myself.
If a test provider told me I needed 'whatever', I wouldn't take their word for it.
I would check myself (or be in possession of the facts before I contacted them).

Oh yes I realise that. I was just giving an example where travellers need a helping hand trying to find info, which I found difficult. In our case due to 2 naive teenagers who'd never travelled before without parents and were put off  going last year like they wanted to by me because I thought this year would be 'easier'. 

I won't go either, the faff, expense (even though I'm double jabbed) and the uncertainty. We were due to go on holiday to Spain last year and daughter would attend a drama summer school whilst we were there. Thought it would be ideal a family of 3 holiday each end and a couples one in the middle. Fortunately we'd only got as far as booking the summer school, which was refunded. I spent last summer longing to go somewhere but too cautious and this year can't be bothered with it. My sister is currently in Spain, she flies home hours after advice changes to 'advised to take a PCR test to return' She's taken antigen ones with her and has concerns they'll be an issue. She's told me my Niece is booked to go to Spain next month. I asked her dates, it's days before the next travel update. I think it's risky because I've read more than once that Spain avoided being put on red because there isn't capacity at the hotels to quarantine those currently out there on their return. By mid September that will reduce as term starts but Niece can't change holiday dates, she's in the police, her hols are set. She could possibly change locations but that could also be risky.

Husband is probably one to the few disappointed that France has turned to Amber as he was hoping to avoid a work trip! Sis says that some of the planes are now landing in other airports to pick passengers up. She's in Majorca and a plane went from there to Ibiza to pick up passengers. Both sis and daughter have said how empty the planes were departing and for daughter that's the date that went ahead, 3 others got changed. I do wonder what is going to happen to the airline/tourist/travel industry if they don't make things a lot simpler including the cost of tests.

tooldle

Writing guidance for consumption by the public is not an easy task. Some years back a wise colleague suggested, when writing for a non expert audience, tailor the writing to reading age 13 to ‘catch’ as much of the audience as possible but be mindful this won’t catch all.
If i were reading ‘advised’, it would to me mean, suggested, recommended i.e. something one could do if wished. If i were reading ‘must or should’, it would to me mean mandatory. Checking word definitions may help some people

eskbanker

tooldle said:

If i were reading ‘must or should’, it would to me mean mandatory.

Much depends on context but in themselves 'must' and 'should' aren't synonymous (the latter typically conveying advice/suggestion), so if I were reading 'must or should' (together like that) then it would mean to me that the writer was incompetent if they were aiming to convey an instruction or recommendation with any clarity - are you thinking of a specific example where those terms are conjoined like that?

gingercordial

Thrugelmir said:

michael1234 said:

Conversely Ryanair themselves require facemasks regardless  of rules in the destination country (e.g. UK) 

What's the relevance of the destination country to Ryanair's internal decision to madate the wearing of facemasks?  

Italian law requires that passengers on all aircraft going to/from Italy wear a mask throughout the flight, so that is not Ryanair's choice for flights to Italy.  If they want to land there, they have to enforce it on board.

It might still be Ryanair's own requirement if going to other countries which don't have such a law.

Ben1989

You could argue the government purposely make the rules and guidance confusing to deter people from travelling. Enough confusion could make people say 'stuff it, let's go to Cornwall instead'.

You should read the visa requirements and guidance. Impossible.

michael1234

Ben1989 said:

You could argue the government purposely make the rules and guidance confusing to deter people from travelling. Enough confusion could make people say 'stuff it, let's go to Cornwall instead'.

You should read the visa requirements and guidance. Impossible.

Yes I think you're right. They wanted/want to reduce numbers travelling.

IMO, whether to reduce covid transmission or to tighten immigration the policy should always be transparent. If someone is not allowed to enter the country they should be strictly barred from doing so. On the other hand if someone is allowed, they should be welcomed (preferably with a border force smile) and not charged astronomical visa or other fees.