When timatic/doc checks don't agree - Singapore

[henrus]

So I've had my fair share of check in issues from being told at Geneva that Australian's require a visa to enter Ireland and even in Sydney during covid times being told I was ineligible to enter Switzerland (agent forgot to scroll to 2nd page of timatic) but here is an interesting one I've spotted for travel to Singapore.

It all started on wikipedia when looking at the Singapore visa policy, it peaked my interest that Saudi Arabians get an "indefinite stay"


Now I actually couldn't find on the Singapore Govs website anything that mentioned an indefinite stay just a reference that from middle of 2023 Saudi Arabian's no longer need a visa. In fact it seems that Singapore govs website doesn't have the number of day info at all?

My next step was to look on timatic (via Copa website) which has the following info for Saudi Arabian's traveling to Singapore not mentioning any time frame but does say extension of stay is possible:



Then TravelDoc (via the KML website), which says maximum stay at discretion of immigration


Sherpa (via the skyteam website) which lists 90 days:



and Emirates which say Visa required except for normal passport which is exempt:


I find it rather amusing that four different sources have different take on access but it's not just a Saudi passport, whilst Timatic and Emirates agree that Australian's get 90 days visa free, Traveldoc and Sherpa state that Australian's only get 30 days
Timatic:


Traveldoc:



Apparently quite a few skyteam airlines use traveldoc but there are probably others but with Singapore being one of the easier countries in terms of visa requirements one has to wonder if anyone's been caught out by incorrect info like above and incorrectly been denied boarding.

 

[Himeno]

I've had a few issues with airline staff not reading the requirements correctly at check in.

Once had Frontier staff claim I needed a visa for Canada (check in for DEN-YVR). I insisted that I didn't and they took my passport out the back and called someone. Came back saying I was right.

Another time, the JAL station manager at ICN (flying ICN-NRT-DFW) insisted I needed a visa for the US as my passport didn't have a chip. Said passport was issued before Oct 26 2006, thus under the requirements at the time, only required a MRZ. The US required that passports from visa waver countries have chips in order to use visa free travel, but only for those passports issued from Oct 26 2006 (which is the day Australia started issuing e-passports).
They finally relented and allowed me to check in when I pointed out the US entry stamp, marked with VWP, from a few months prior.

Then BA got very confused by the Mainland China TWOV rules. It got sorted out with a few phone calls at check in. Then while I was in the lounge, it got changed in the system and had to be sorted out again when attempting to board.