twix38

Imv being asked to return and show bank book after 3 months from annual retirement extension is unnecessary.

The only action if all financial rules not followed would not occur until next annual extension when they check bank book transaction page. Then if 800/400k rules not observed they don't renew or whatever. The annual extension is valid for a year until renewal - unless at this 3 month interval they would cancel the remaining 9 months? So unless the rules result in early cancellation for breach being checked 3 months after, then the 3 month bank book check is simply another hurdle without a logical requirement or need and in any event it could simply be checked annually via updated transaction page.

Yes, i would get a tourist visa precisely because of the flight requirement versus extension issue, if I didn't.

The visa exempt and then an extension sounded really good up until it became apparent that it only works well for the visa exemption part. In terms of any planning to possibly stay for over 30 days its best to obtain a tourist visa. Pity though, as with just a small tweak to a 60 day flight requirement this would be a super tourist advertisement for Thailand. 

Perhaps talk of attracting more tourists isn't worthy of this small sensible adaption in removing the need for a pre 30 day flight out to a 60 day or seen as making the tourist visa too unattractive, which it then would for some, like me.

Thanks

It's ONLY requested by airline because it's required by Thai immigration. That's obvious!

If Thai immigration made it 60 days the airline would also change.

If the rules were sensible then I'd have no problem. The problem comes from a naff extension offer where, so long as you have deparyed thailand on a flight beforehand or wasted buying it. If the rule was sensible then everything else including airport checks would follow suit. The extension part is not currently a sensible element unless it were 60 day flight out ticket. All the issues and checks flow from current poor thinking on visa exempt extension resulting in making the tourist visa the best option for stays over 30 days but only because of the half baked exemption and 30 day flight requirement. If they simply made it 60 days flight requirement or scrapped the extension and said if you want 60 days get a tourist visa, id say fair enough.

Now I have convinced someone it's job done. From a previous thread I was beginning to think nobody could see anything even slightly off about this. You have restored my faith in thaivisa posters - finally!

Thanks 

Absolutely. We all try to plan our time and get the most suitable visa. 

It would appear a visa exempt and then extension would be great. As that comes with a ridiculous stipulation for an outward flight booked on first entry that you don't need and don't want then get a tourist visa and mention to Thai immigration that buying a useless flight to get admitted to Thailand as part of the official immigration rules is silly when an extension is offered but you've first had to show you don't need it!

If immigration rule made sense and was flight within 60 days then no airline problem. Its because Thai immigration stipulate flight within 30 days that makes the airline check for 30 days  and then also makes the extension part clash with having been forced to book an unnecessary flight within first 30 days for anyone planning to use the extension to stay for 30 + 30

Either change it to 60 days or scrap the extension and tell people to get a tourist visa.

It's complicating things and making things more difficult than is sensible imv I will give you an extension only if you promise and show me you will not need It lol

Many thanks.

But as it's set up,  then the extension can only ever be used if you've bought an outward flight departing within 30 days and decide to extend Instead of flying out and that's official immigration policy? An option to extend so long as you have already bought a flight out showing you dont need an extension and this is the actual immigration rule. We will extend so long as you first waste your money proving on entry you have a flight out before you qualify for the extension. Lol

Flight out within 60 days makes sense or no extension offer and just a visa exempt 30 days or otherwise get a tourist visa. 

So you enter for 30 days  visa exempt and must already have a flight out booked on or before 30 days. Fly out and Return and get a new 30 days visa exempt, pressumably with needing another flight out within 30 days - At what point do you exercise your extension? Is it Just a choice between extending and hence wasting booked flight out or using 2nd flight out Instead rather than extending. I don't get the practical working of the extension unless it means not using a flight out that had to be bought for original visa exempt arrival?

Able to extend for 60 days? That's new info!

A tourist visa it is then.

Clearly a visa exempt entry is only worth it for the first 30 days and extension is then not fit for purpose in any planning sense at all. Really should be mentioned when informing regarding visa exempt and extension that a flight out is required booked on first entry to Thailand and for a date before extension could be applied for. 

Dan o

Ok, no good reason. I will just count myself lucky to be allowed in lol.

The result is the extension for 30 days is irrelevant if I must book a flight out within 30 days. On return I would get another 30 days visa exempt anyway so what's the point of the ability to extend for an extra 30 days. When would the extension be used?

**I guess with a flight out booked i then don't need to take the flight and can then just extend at immigration**. Jeez! If that's the use of the extension because I didn't use the outbound flight I had to buy, then it makes my dissatisfaction completely justified and the 30 days should of course be 60 days in that case. You see I just don't get it and NOBODY feels like answering the actual question, <deleted>.

Not one of you engages with the common sense aspect of why it is like it is and the justifiable reason. All I seek to ascertain is that there's sense and ideally a helpful immigration system of rules that are not creating unnecessary difficulties. Instead it seems they are and I should just thank immigration and suck it up. 

Posters here so far are as illogical and unhelpful as this 30 day flight when it should be 60 day flight rule thus fitting in with their own additional 30 day extension and when also combined with an outward/return flight booked prior to first entry to return/leave within 60 days!

If I make an unnecessary inconvenience for someone I don't usually get thanked for it. I'm happy with the 30 day visa exempt but why ruin the extension offer with a stupid flight out before 30 days together with a further 30 day extension offer. Are you posters NUTS to tell me I should be thankful for this aspect that makes no sense to me and I must be right as nobody ever addresses the point or even tries to answer it. If I knew of a good reason that made sense I would accept it but you lot are just nodding sheep who have NO answer so don't even try. 

I was first told 30 day visa exemption and can extend by 30 days and nobody mentioned needing a flight out booked before 30 days. What a complete nonsense!

Here's why I'm miffed. In another thread i asked about what was given if just arrived at airport and told I qualify for a 30 day visa exempt and this can be extended for another 30 days at Immigration.

Great I thought. No mention that to do the extension I would also need to have flown out of the country within those first 30 days. I thought why? There is no good reason.

I remain of this point of view because however generous you think immigration is. There is no need to have to fly out pre 30 days when I am permitted to extend by another 30 days until 60 days. In this regard it is punative. They could and SHOULD extend this aspect to 60 days as the rules do already allow for my extended stay to 60 days. Flying out of country pre 30 days is just completely unnecessary and still nobody has even tried to say why this is a satisfactory requirement?  WHY????

 Just how lucky we are and how generous immigration is!

It is a very inconvenient and unnecessary requirement as it stands.

Yes that's right lol

Thanks for your input. Invaluable 

Still I thought at least one poster might try answering. All that comes back is acceptance, apologists, alternative and excuses. 

Nope.

Would you be an apologist by any chance? Nobody has an answer WHY they couldn't or shouldnt do as I suggest. I don't see why things have to be more difficult than needed like this issue is when it seems so easy and helpful to amend it and simply make life a little easier

Ok Sheryl, but shouldn't have to as there's simply no need if they played ball and made it 60 instead of 30 days.

Of course there's a simple alternative that involves getting a tourist visa. Pity immigration can't make it simpler still as I have proffered. No reason not to and nobody has said there is.

it's just made more difficult than it needs to be for no good reason and instead we need to get a tourist visa or fly out before 30 days. Mad! 

It misses the point which is telling me WHY immigration can't simply stop the need for this pre 30 day flight issue if staying less than 60 with a booked return flight.

I conclude it ends up being excused rather than explained. There's no reason whatsoever to create this awkward pre 30 day flight issue. So sorry but there's no need for a pre 30 day flight issue. It should ONLY be a post 30 and pre 60 day flight issue. Simple. Really simple, straight forward and helpful - which it currently is NOT!

Immigration could immediately make it 60 days and not force me to get a flight pre 30 days or a tourist visa if I want to stay up to 60 days on visa exempt. NOT one person has even tried to explain why this cannot happen and instead must fly out prior to 30 days or get a tourist visa for a visit up to 60 days that could and SHOULD easily be done as (perfectly legal and ) available by 1 extension for an extra 30 days with flight out booked pre 60 days rather than 30. Everyone is happy to book pointless pre 30 day flight or get a tourist visa when just no need. I suppose immigration want the income from tourist visa rather than allow 60 days. That's probably immigration preference and reason and the flight out pre 30 days didn't concern them as we should have got a tourist visa.  Newsflash : there should be no need as we can stay 60 days legally so let us do that from the start with any 30 day flight issue moved to 60 days.

Drjack54,

You seem not to be understanding.

I agree and have no problem with the airlines. It is Thai immigration I blame for a completely unnecessary 30 days whereas instead of it could be 60 days, like below and not 30.

" to be eligable for a visa exempt stamp at an airport the person needs to have a ticket out of Thailand within 60 days".

It would then not require airlines to check the 30 day issue as it would not exist and neither would having to get a flight out prior to 30 days. It should be Thai immigration that amends the rule to 60 days as I have said repeatedly. It's no skin off their nose and would be a million miles better and I'm not saying the journey is a million miles either lol

Reading all the difficulties around buying this prior to 30 day flight to qualify for visa exempt makes me wonder why there are so many people that accept the principle and defend it. There is no downside to making it 60 days instead as continuing to extend for the 30+30. 

Only impediment is Thai immigration not allowing it and resulting inconvenience and cost of an unnecessary flight prior to 30 days. I don't thank immigration st all for that. Quiete the opposite. When I understand the logic of rules I accept them otherwise I find it more like an unfair arbitrary penalty.

Well at least get it right! I am not complaining about airline attitude. They just ensure the existing rules will not make a problem when their passenger arrives at BKK airport. I am complaining, or first checking I have it right and no other explanations, and then complaining about Thai immigration rules that with no good basis requires those staying 31 to 60 days to buy a flight out before 30 days. 

As i see it this should simply not be needed on stays of up to 60 days as under existing rules with a 30 day extension its fine and yes I do object to buying an unnecessary flight when all it really needs is to change  the rule to have a ticket out of Thailand within 60 days. To do this would not cause Thai immigration ANY problem yet would assist visitors in not having to buy a completely irrelevant flight out prior to 30 days. It's just a stupid 30 day rule that would be win-win at 60  days.

I don't really care what other local countries do or don't do or count myself lucky that without a good reason this is the rule. I deal in logic and prefer assistance to pointless and unnecessary inconvenience and barriers.

As nobody can give me a good reason that it couldn't be 60 days instead of 30 then I will assume it's another example of awkward immigration rules that just hinder and alienate or someone tell me why not?

My point is simply that I see no reason the rules should not be.....

 " to be eligable for a visa exempt stamp at an airport the person needs to have a ticket out of Thailand within 60 days".

Instead if we want to stay between 31 and 60 days which is allowed with 1 extension at immigration we must also book and pay for a flight out of Thailand within 30 days. Totally unnecessary and inconvenient!! 

Oh ok. That seems unnecessary imv but it's the rule.

So if I wanted to visit Thailand for between 31 and 60 days I must buy a flight ticket out of thailand by 30 days for the airline which is checking the Thai immigration compliance and mainly  for the Thai rule that 30 day exemption eligibility requires an outwood flight booked by 30 day period. 

Hence to stay longer than 30 days whilst intending to leave prior to 60 days is impossible without a completely unnecessary flight out by 30 days even if the departure date with a booked flight home is within 60 days. This is bs and should be completely unnecessary if the return flight  ticket home date is 60 days after arrival date or less surely?

Just bloody minded or is there some justifiable reason that 60 days with no visa can't be allowed when a return flight out of Thailand is booked and shown to be within 60 days of arrival?

What the rule should be and could be is " to be eligable for a visa exempt stamp at an airport the person needs to have a ticket out of Thailand within 60 days" very sensible and easy to do and I don't know why it's not amended when simply no need to have to buy a pointless flight after 30 days ?

If from visa exempt country then get 40 days and can extend at immigration for another 30 days. 

I thought everyone can just arrive  and get 30 days and then extend at immigration for another 30 days without Visa? 2 months without Visa and extending once with flight booked to leave Thailand within 60 days. Why need a visa if staying less than 60 days with return flight booked?

Many thanks

Many thanks one and all.

Ubonjoe, do you have a working link as the one you posted above just says this site can't be reached?

Why is it that the 21 countries allowed VOA get a worse deal than others getting 30 day visa exempt entry and can just turn up at airport immigration after flying in?

So have i got this right - a VOA that costs 2,000 baht and I must apply for only gives me 15 days and cannot be extended? Whereas a visa exempt entry is automatically given on entry and I qualify. Costs nothing and can be extended? So thank god i am not in those 21 countries and i don't qualify for a VOA lol

Therefore, with no visa and just my passport and tm6 slip I get 30 days that can be extended at immigration for another 30 days for 1,900 baht. 

What is timeframe within which I go to get extension at immigration? I.e after (date) and not after (date)

Many thanks

I am from UK.

Is that the basis for the difference in either getting 15 or 30 days on arrival? That was/ is not clear to me as sounded more like I could get either. So is it the case UK citizens get the 30 day visa exempt entry and the 15 day VOA is therefore irrelevant?