Mattd

4 hours ago, steve187 said:

A non immigrant 'O'A' visa issued in home country and i believe only from Embassies is a 'Retirement visa'

Actually, to be exact it is a 'long stay visa for over 50's who wish to stay in Thailand for a period of one year without the intention of working' 

10 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

There is really no difference between embassies and official Thai consulates. You are probably thinking of honorary Thai consulates,

Vientiane is a embassy and it will be open according to their updated holiday list.

The embassy in a Kuala Lumpur also does not show it as a holiday,

 

Yes, sorry honorary consulates.

I have to admit that I am really very genuinely surprised that any of the Thai Embassies or Official Consulates are going to be open on the 26th, I'd have thought they would be expected to close and show respect.

Certainly appears that the majority worldwide are closed.

2 minutes ago, pearciderman said:

 

Your argument falls down when you mention work and Non-Imm visas. You can't work on a Non-O for being over 50, You can't work on a Non-OA either.

I don't recall saying that it was possible on those categories of non 0 visas, though there is no reason whatsoever why you cannot work on a non o over the age of 50 unless you have extended for retirement, for example, a 55 year old entering on a non o and extending for marriage is perfectly entitled to work.

My point was that the PE visa is in effect a long term tourist visa.

6 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Why?

The updated holiday list list was done in June well after the 26th was made a holiday here by a cabinet resolution made in April..

The list also includes other holidays that were added in April (July 28th and October 13th).

The 26th is not shown as a holiday on the Vientiane or Savannakhet websites as well. Do a little research and you will find others that do not show the 26th as a holiday.

I think that actual embassies will be closed on the 26th, consulates, maybe not.

31 minutes ago, overherebc said:

I was always under the impression if you changed your name by deed poll when you get a new passport it is noted in the passport, on the lines of

' previously travelled under the name of xxx '.

If not printed then maybe in the chip.

When we got married and my wife changed name it was noted as such in her new passport.

In the case of the UK, then according to the FAQ's in http://www.deedpoll.org.uk/OtherFAQs.html, then there is no mention of any former names in the new passport.

Q5:  Will my new passport and driving licence mention my old name?
A:  No, you will receive a brand new passport and driving licence without any mention or reference to your previous name.

38 minutes ago, pearciderman said:

 

Where do you see it said that it is a long stay tourist visa ?

Although it perhaps doesn't state it, the PE (I believe they are not longer referred to as TE) visa is in reality a long stay tourist visa, as, apart from the year long entries and extensions, it is the same as a tourist visa, i.e. it isn't a non-immigrant type, so you cannot work here whilst holding this visa for example.

Although, it should still be perfectly possible to get a yellow book, open a bank account, buy a vehicle and get a 2 year driving license as a PE visa holder.

22 minutes ago, hapacadabra said:

So if I (and people in my situation) are reading the advice correctly...

 

it's that, the airport *will* put a notation listing my previous passport number, *but*, that this shouldn't really scare me, because immigration will know exactly who I am, regardless? Even without any notation - when I return to Thailand with my new passport - they know me, and all my entries/exits.

 

The only benefit is potentially at the consulate-level? IE - if/when I go to make a new Visa somewhere, the consulate will either see a notation (if I make the passport in Thailand), or they see nothing (if I make the passport elsewhere). Little-to-no benefit there, I imagine?

Spot on!

Only advantage being when applying for tourist visas at those embassies or consulates that count the number you get in one passport and refuse after so many, a new passport would only reset this.

5 minutes ago, BritTim said:

a 60-day extension to visit a Thai family member

I think this is unlikely, otherwise he would have had a valid reason to apply for a SE non O.

3 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

I don't think 3 entry stamps is a lot of stamps. It was everything related to his extension of stay based upon working here and his last entry using a re-entry permit from his extension.

 

 

This is normal as most using extensions know, it is not unusual for the first two pages of a new passport to be used for the transfer if on an extension, for a stamp for the change of passport details, transferred extension stamp plus re-entry permit (if have), details of the original visa type including the date, point and mode of original entry on that visa and of course the last entry stamp details.

2 minutes ago, Guderian said:

think he phoned them up and was told by somebody that to get a Non-Imm O he had to be 65 years old and in receipt of the state pension.

In that case, it seems that he has never really had an actual reason to be issued a non O visa and in the past was just lucky in getting them from Hull when they were lapse in the documentation needed to get one. Which is one of the reasons why things have tightened up worldwide.

5 minutes ago, Guderian said:

He was here from November 2016 until April 2017 using that route and also from May 2017 until September 2017 so he seems to know what he's doing.

Using a tourist visa there is really only two ways he could have been doing this, either starting off with a METV, first entry for 60 days and doing a 30 day extension, going out for a border hop and entering for a further 60 days and repeating the 30 day extension, or coming in on a SETV, for 60 days, extending this 30 days, then going to a neighbouring country and getting another SETV and repeating.

I do think he will be issued with a SETV valid for 3 months and a 60 day entry in to Thailand, as stated by other posters, it is extremely unlikely that the Thai Embassy in London has stopped issuing these type of tourist visas, would make no sense at all.

Just now, Brayka said:

When your flight Goes to Ch.Mai from Suvarnabhumi you don’t go through immigration in Suv. We did iT once and even our suitcase went on the flight to Ch. Mai, so we didn’t have to do anything, so it was very easy. 

This is going to depend entirely on whether or not the airline from UK to BKK are able to check everything straight through.

Reading further in to this, then a lot of airlines have had to rewrite their separate ticket policy, due to the introduction of APPS (APIS) in Thailand, so, if the journey is ticketed individually, i.e. UK - BKK on one ticket and the sector BKK - CNX on another ticket, then the OP may well have to clear immigration and collect his baggage in BKK prior to checking in again for the BKK - CNX flight.

This, I'd assume, is because the originating airline can only report the pax info as far as BKK to APPS.

Only way to know is to ask the originating airline.

There would be no point in a British person applying and paying for a 30 day tourist visa, as they could enter in to Thailand with a (free) visa exempt entry and get 30 days, that can be extended for 30 days.

I reckon the embassy will issue a 60 day single entry tourist visa.

On what basis was he applying for Non immigrant O visas for in the past, the Embassy in London can still issue several types of non immigrant visas, if he was going to there anyway, then he could have applied for a non immigrant O visa, so long as he has a valid reason to do so.

As far as I know, the consulates only stopped issuing multiple entry visas and they can still issue single entry visas, both tourist and non O, with the non O requiring approval from London.

3 minutes ago, Guderian said:

I went to the Thai Embassy and filled in the form by requesting my usual 2 X 60 day returns, which with the addition of a 30 day extension at the Jomtien office, is usually plenty for me.

A bit confused on understanding exactly what tourist visa your friend applied for?

A SETV would allow him one 60 day entry with one 30 day extension.

Where does the 2 x 60 day returns come from, was he applying for a METV?

1 minute ago, BritTim said:

To see where the bags have been checked through to, the easiest solution is to examine the baggage tags. These specify the destination.

This is true, if the bags are able to be cleared to CNX, then it is possible that the onward boarding pass to CNX might be able to be issued at the point of origin as well.

Normally the person at the check in desk will be able to see the connecting flight if the two airlines have the appropriate interline agreement and would then ask where do you want the bags etc. checking to.

The OP should be able to check if the two airlines he is flying are able to make this connection.

I've never done a transit in BKK airport, I wonder, is there any inbound immigration in the transit area in the case of those whose baggage is checked through?

1 minute ago, natway09 said:

Just make sure that you have all your ducks in a row when you check in for your flight to Bangkok

or they may not let you board without an onward flight ticket.

Should not be an issue, especially with an O-A visa, if it is, then he needs to demand to see a supervisor.

29 minutes ago, hakancnx said:

Why not book your flight directly to CNX, so your luggage appear in CNX. 

And you do the Immigration there also. 

OP has already booked his flights, so probably not an option now.

However, if the two airlines have an agreement, then it may be possible to do this, suggest the OP does ask at the initial check in, just in case they are able to check him right through.

2 hours ago, scorecard said:

Does the flight to Chiang Mai depart from Suvanabhumi Airport or Don Muang airport? 

21 hours ago, WhiteHatPhil said:

I have booked and paid for a separate flight from Suvarnabhumi to Chiang Mai, about three hours after I land from London.

9 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 I Have also been a required  to give my consent, except on one occasion,when I attended the office with my Thai wife and one of our children. I sat outside in the waiting area,exspecting to be called in to give my consent.Never happened. Passport approved.

Then I'd say that this is a rare exception to the rule that should not have happened, in my experience, the fact that one of the parents is not Thai would (should) not have any bearing, what you experienced may well also happen to a Thai couple renewing a passport for their child, personally, even though it can be a pain, I agree with this rule, which gives some protection against child abduction.

14 minutes ago, nontabury said:

There is an exception to this requirement. When one of the parents are none Thai, it has been know for their presence and/or consent not to be required. 

Rubbish, the law does not differentiate at all, I have always had to be in attendance for both my children's Thai passport applications, as UJ correctly points out, the only exceptions are using a consent letter from either parent, or one parent has legal sole custody of the child if divorced.

1 hour ago, thaitanic said:

Will my next 90-day report be (a) 90 days after my new extension of day is processed, or (b) 90 days after the expiry date of my last extension of stay? I asked before but not 100% clear on the answer. If the answer is (a) then it seems beneficial to leave it late to apply, so that I can do my 90-day reporting later and perhaps even avoid one during the course of the forthcoming year. Right?

Your next 90 day report will be either 90 days after your last 90 day report, or 90 days after your last entry in to Thailand, remembering that the last report or entry day count as day one.

The first extension of stay counts as a 90 day report, subsequent extensions do not.

55 minutes ago, Circles said:

Yes I asked this too and they confirmed definitely that the Thai Police will take me off keep me in detention and sent me off as it's the proper procedures 

OK, many thanks for the update, it is appreciated and has added to the knowledge base.

3 minutes ago, Circles said:

My family boarded and I  of course did not board. 

Sorry to hear that, although it is better to play it safe.

4 minutes ago, Circles said:

Ship agent and back after checks with Thai Port Authorities with image of my current passport and said clearly that I cannot set foot in Thailand, nor transit ( though they explained air and sea transit may work differently)

if I had not known of such consequences, the customs would have come on board to do clearance and the Thai police will be waiting for me at Phuket to take me off, detained me till further paperwork is done and deport me via air. 

Interesting, I still cannot help wondering if they would have actually gone to the extremes of taking you off the vessel and then deport you by air, the vessel is only gong to be in port for 14 hours and it would be far easier just to have left you onboard.

Not sure about everybody else, but TVF is exceptionally slow for me this morning, loads of errors when loading pages and difficult to post replies, just does nothing at all.

42 minutes ago, Circles said:

my biggest worry is this, with the old identity number being embedded in my new passport which bears a new passport number.

@Circles I do not think this is going to be such a problem, as I would imagine that this data is in the biometric chip.

Even though you have a new passport number, Immigration will be linking data based on your name, nationality and DOB, this data may well have already been sent to the Thai authorities for clearances, certainly will be sent at least 24 hours prior to arrival in to Phuket, however, the general consensus is that even if the Thai authorities do see your blacklisted, this is not going to be an issue so long as you do not disembark the ship whilst it is in Phuket, make it clear to the purser that you will not be getting off.

Please do let us know how you go on.

4 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

Although it is possible that immigration might pick up on a ban 12 years ago, I very much doubt that they will board the vessel and ‘drag’ the OP off the ship if he/she has elected not to disembark.  There would be no point.

 

As for security, again according to the Immigration Act B.E.2422  Section 27(1) the owner/person in charge is responsible for ensuring that no one leaves the vessel without permission from a ‘competent official’ (read immigration officer) .  There are very substantial penalties if there is a breach of these regulations.

I agree there would be no point, trouble is, logic doesn't prevail here at times, as we are very aware of!

Agreed it is the vessel operator that is responsible, trouble is ports have more holes in them than a colander, especially if the disembarkation is via ferry boat, it is, I feel, going to somewhat depend on whether the blacklist does come out and if the Thai authorities get some crazy notion that this is a backdoor entry attempt by the OP.