Learn Hardcore Spanish (Spain): Cuando fui al aeropuerto sin visado, la empleada me explicó que no podía subir al avión. - When I went to the airport without a visa, the female employee explained to me that I could not get on the plane.

Cuando fui al aeropuerto… = On the occasion when I went to the airport… (one specific time)
Cuando iba al aeropuerto… = Whenever I went / When I used to go to the airport… (repeated or background action)

In this sentence, a particular incident is being narrated, so fui is the natural choice.

Why is the verb after cuando also in the preterite (fui) instead of the imperfect? I thought cuando often uses the imperfect.

Cuando can be followed by preterite or imperfect, depending on what you want to express:

Use preterite when the action is seen as completed and part of the main sequence of events.
Use imperfect when the action is background / ongoing / habitual.

Compare:

Cuando fui al aeropuerto, la empleada me explicó…
→ That visit to the airport is a specific event. It’s part of the main story line.
Cuando iba al aeropuerto, siempre me ponía nervioso.
→ Going to the airport is repeated or habitual background; the focus is on what usually happened.

Here, the speaker is telling one clear story about one time, so fui fits.

Why do we say al aeropuerto and not a el aeropuerto?

Al is simply the contraction of a + el:

a (to) + el (the, masculine singular) → al

Spanish always contracts a + el to al in standard speech and writing:

Voy al aeropuerto. (not a el aeropuerto)
Llamé al médico. (not a el médico)

It does not contract with la, los, las:

Voy a la estación.
Llamé a los amigos.

What is the difference between visado and visa? Which is more common in Spain?

Both refer to a visa (the document that allows you to enter a country), but usage varies by region:

In Spain, the usual word is el visado.
In much of Latin America, la visa is more common.

In Spain you can also hear la visa, but visado is very standard, especially in formal or bureaucratic contexts.

So in Peninsular Spanish, sin visado is very natural and idiomatic.

Why is it sin visado and not sin un visado?

In Spanish, after sin (without), you often omit the article when you’re talking about the general presence or absence of something:

sin visado = without (any) visa
sin dinero = without money
sin trabajo = without a job

If you say sin un visado, it sounds more like “without a particular visa” and is less likely in this generic, rule-type context. Here, the focus is on the lack of the required document in general, so sin visado is the natural phrasing.

Why is it la empleada and not una empleada?

La empleada uses the definite article (the employee), which suggests:

It’s the specific employee the speaker dealt with at that moment.
The context implies that “the employee” is understood as the one in charge at the counter / the one at that desk, not just any random employee.

If you say una empleada, you introduce her for the first time as some employee among potentially many, with no particular identification:

Una empleada me explicó… = An employee explained to me… (this could be one of several, no specific one assumed)

In storytelling, using la empleada often anchors the person as “the (relevant) employee in that situation,” and is quite common.

Why is empleada feminine here? Could it be el empleado?

Yes, it could be el empleado if the employee was male.

Spanish job titles usually show gender agreement:

el empleado / la empleada
el profesor / la profesora
el camarero / la camarera

Here, la empleada tells you the person was female. If the employee had been male, the sentence would be:

…el empleado me explicó que…

What does the pronoun me do in la empleada me explicó?

Me is an indirect object pronoun, meaning “to me” or “for me”.

La empleada explicó la situación.
= The employee explained the situation (but we don’t say to whom).
La empleada me explicó la situación.
= The employee explained the situation to me.

In Spanish, indirect objects with verbs like explicar, decir, dar, mostrar are almost always expressed with the clitic pronoun (me, te, le, nos, os, les), and it goes before the conjugated verb:

Me explicó, te dijo, nos mostró, etc.

Why is it me explicó que no podía subir and not me explicó: “No puedes subir”? Is there a difference?

Both are possible, but they differ in style:

Indirect speech (reported speech) – used in the sentence you gave:
- me explicó que no podía subir al avión
- Literally: she explained to me that I couldn’t board the plane.
This is a summary of what she said, integrated into the narrator’s perspective.
Direct speech (quoted speech):
- me explicó: “No puedes subir al avión”.
- Literally: she explained to me: “You can’t board the plane.”
This quotes her exact words.

In storytelling, indirect speech is very common in Spanish, especially in past narratives, hence me explicó que no podía… feels very natural.

Why is it no podía subir al avión (imperfect) and not no pude subir or no podía subir in present (no puede subir)?

Podía is in the imperfect past because:

It’s reported speech: the original statement was probably “No puedes subir al avión” (present).
When narrating that in the past, Spanish usually “moves” the tense back:
- Direct: “No puedes subir al avión.”
- Reported later: Me explicó que no podía subir al avión.

This is called backshifting in reported speech.

Why not no pude?

No pude subir al avión = I didn’t manage / wasn’t able to board the plane (in the end).
That focuses on the result.
No podía subir al avión = I was not allowed / I couldn’t board the plane (because of a rule or restriction).
That focuses on the ongoing impossibility or prohibition, which matches the idea of a rule (you have no visa, so you can’t board).

So no podía subir sounds right for a rule explained by an employee.

Does subir al avión literally mean “to go up to the plane”? Is that how you say “board the plane” in Spain?

Yes, subir al avión is a very common way to say “to board the plane” in Spain.

Literally, subir = to go up / to get on:

subir al avión = get on / board the plane
subir al tren = get on the train
subir al autobús = get on the bus

Other options you’ll also hear:

embarcar en el avión – more technical/airline vocabulary: to board the plane.
abordar el avión – also used, but subir al avión is very everyday, especially in Peninsular Spanish.

Could you say subirme al avión instead of subir al avión?

Yes, you could say no podía subirme al avión, and it would still be understood as “I couldn’t get on the plane”.

subir al avión (non‑reflexive) is more neutral and standard.
subirse al avión (reflexive) is also common in colloquial speech and can feel slightly more informal or expressive, but the difference in meaning here is minimal.

In this kind of neutral narrative sentence, no podía subir al avión is a very natural choice.

Why is it al avión and not just subir avión without an article?

In Spanish, countable singular nouns almost always need an article (el / la / un / una) when they refer to a specific object:

el avión = the (specific) plane
un avión = a plane

You generally cannot say subir avión in standard Spanish.

Here, we are talking about that specific plane she wanted to board, so al avión (a + el avión) is required:

no podía subir al avión
= she couldn’t board the plane (the one for that flight).