[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

If I read the post correctly, this complaint is about the requirement to possess a return, or onward, ticket in ADDITION to sufficient funds to cover the period of one's stay. The requirement of a return, or onward, ticket is a very common one. Only citizens of the given country are exempted. If someone is refused entry into a given country, the airline that brought that person there is obligated to transport the person, at their own expense, back to the point of origin. In addition the airline, and/or its staff, may be subject to fines and penalties.

I'm a retired employee of a state government. To the average government employee, or even an airline employee, whether a rule makes sense doesn't matter. Whether one can even UNDERSTAND the rule also doesn't matter. Don't follow the rule? Then, it matters! On the other hand, I have a big-time problem with government, airline and others who deal in "customer service"-type positions and use the limited authority they have to deal with their feelings of personal inadequacy, and other problems, while causing the customer to suffer for it.

As a side note: Some years ago I believe Air Pacific was denied landing rights, on US territory, because of safety issues. I don't know if the matter was ever resolved.