Airline/Immigration flight rules

[Old Croc]

On ‎3‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 11:38 AM, stanleycoin said:

Even some Airlines,  don't employ the smartest people at times. 

Quite right, there are some idiots working at airports and for the airlines. However, their average IQ is still far above that of the average airline passenger.

[stanleycoin]

31 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

Quite right, there are some idiots working at airports and for the airlines. However, their average IQ is still far above that of the average airline passenger.

i would say that is very dependent on the Airline and / or country. 

 

Also some times the check in staff,  are not flight crew.

just airport ground staff, having a bad day. 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by stanleycoin

[Nong Khai Man]

On 3/4/2019 at 11:33 AM, Bert Jones said:

For all the criticism that gets heaped on Thailand fom these bb's, having spent a month in miserable Georgia with what must be the unhappiest of people on the planet...my gf and I are so happy to be back. For all their faults, the Thai people are so much nicer to live a life with. They really do for the most part, have a happy collective mindset...they really do smile quite a lot...we just don't see it/notice it after a while. I was considering moving on from Thailand...but not now. Even when I add up the negatives (and there are many)...I love Thailand and it's people.

I booked a flight to Georgia (Europe) with Ukraine airlines recently from BKK.....You were really SCRAPING the bottom of the barrel,There Mate ...

[sandyf]

On 3/4/2019 at 10:55 AM, Vacuum said:

I fail to understand your "issues". You have an extension stamp in your passport which they'll notice when you check in.

You should travel a bit more. I had exactly the same issue as the OP with BA, check in desk insisted that I needed a valid visa to travel to Thailand and the Thai visa had expired. I tried to explain that my stamps were equivalent to a visa but she wouldn't have it and called a superviser over. The superviser looked at my passport and apologised, said they would need to review the training.

[DrJack54]

41 minutes ago, sandyf said:

You should travel a bit more. I had exactly the same issue as the OP with BA, check in desk insisted that I needed a valid visa to travel to Thailand and the Thai visa had expired. I tried to explain that my stamps were equivalent to a visa but she wouldn't have it and called a superviser over. The superviser looked at my passport and apologised, said they would need to review the training.

Your post is confusing. What visa or extension of stay do you have now to be in Thailand. "Stamps equivalent to visa". What's that mean?

[Bert Jones]

"You were really SCRAPING the bottom of the barrel,There Mate ..."

 

Nothing ventured, nothing...

 

On the plus side, my GF and I could get 1 year entry, no visa. The food is fabulous and very cheap. If you're an alcoholic, it's paradise, delicious red wine is just £3 a bottle, 5 year aged brandy wine just £7. A meal for 2, 6 beers and a brandy just £11.50 in a nice restaurant. Bus fare 15p. Really good tasty bread and high quality cakes. Cabs just £2.

Just a shame about the unhappy miserable souls that live there! 

 

Oh, and if you think the driving is bad in Thailand, Georgians think they're all in a formula 1 race...lunatics! and not once did a driver stop for us at a zebra crossing. Nasty buggers! ????

 

 

[sandyf]

22 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

Your post is confusing. What visa or extension of stay do you have now to be in Thailand. "Stamps equivalent to visa". What's that mean?

What's confusing and why does it have to mean something to you, it only needed to mean something to check in, the ability to travel to Thailand without being in possession of a return ticket.

To satisfy your curiosity, the stamps in question were a valid Non O retirement extension and re-entry permit. The point being she was not interested in stamps, only what she recognised as a visa, and all she could find was my previous Non B issued by the London embassy which had been converted to a Non O by the MFA and was well past its sell by date.

[DrJack54]

36 minutes ago, sandyf said:

What's confusing and why does it have to mean something to you, it only needed to mean something to check in, the ability to travel to Thailand without being in possession of a return ticket.

To satisfy your curiosity, the stamps in question were a valid Non O retirement extension and re-entry permit. The point being she was not interested in stamps, only what she recognised as a visa, and all she could find was my previous Non B issued by the London embassy which had been converted to a Non O by the MFA and was well past its sell by date.

At least I'm not the only person your rude to. You have a extension of stay permit and reentry permit. Yes the airline staff was in the wrong. I wouldn't use term "stamps equivalent to visa" because they are not.

Edited March 7, 2019 by DrJack54
Error

[sandyf]

19 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

At least I'm not the only person your rude to. You have a extension of stay permit and reentry permit. Yes the io was in the wrong. I wouldn't use term "stamps equivalent to visa" because they are not.

Since when did an "io" work at a BA check in desk, no wonder you are confused.

[DrJack54]

4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Since when did an "io" work at a BA check in desk, no wonder you are confused.

Yes true. I corrected error. 

[sandyf]

31 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

I wouldn't use term "stamps equivalent to visa" because they are not.

Airlines require that you are in possession of a valid visa to travel on a single ticket or return leg. If you were right people with extension stamps wouldn't be allowed to board. It is a bit irrelevant what the terminology brigade think.

 

BTW. if you are going to quote, do it correctly "I tried to explain that my stamps were equivalent to a visa". 

[Bert Jones]

Airlines are quite happy to take your money at the time of booking. There should be a tick box asking if you have a valid permit/visa to return to said country, the onus should be on the airline at point of booking flights. Refusing return travel at the point of check-in is not on! ...and I'm pretty sure they won't refund you.

[richard_smith237]

12 minutes ago, Bert Jones said:

Airlines are quite happy to take your money at the time of booking. There should be a tick box asking if you have a valid permit/visa to return to said country, the onus should be on the airline at point of booking flights. Refusing return travel at the point of check-in is not on! ...and I'm pretty sure they won't refund you.

 

Flawed idea: In many cases you need the Airline Ticket to obtain the Valid Permit / Visa you mention...

 

Refusing a passenger at check in is perfectly reasonable if you do not meet the Visa requirements and are rejected by immigration the Airline you arrived on has to pay for your return to point of origin or home country. 

 

It is the passengers responsibility to ensure they are meeting all requirements - I'm not sure why you would expect someone else to be responsible for this.

 

[Bert Jones]

Customers are not necessarily clued up on the requirements of IO's in various countries. Airlines seemingly are as it's their duty and responsibility. It wouldn't do any harm to make customers aware of rules at the point of sale., rather than spring it on them when checking-in for the return leg.  IMO.

[jacko45k]

On 3/8/2019 at 11:37 AM, Bert Jones said:

Customers are not necessarily clued up on the requirements of IO's in various countries.

Matter of opinion. If someone plans to travel somewhere they should make some effort to get clued up on the Visa / entry requirements . After all it is your own money you will be wasting otherwise. Airlines might like to think their  responsibility ends when they push you down the arrival jet-way, but of course the immigration forces them to take responsibility for bringing you there without valid travel documents.... they will have to fly you back again at their cost and also may be subject to a substantial fine. Let us say, before you board the plane, it is your responsibility, once on the plane it is theirs!

[richard_smith237]

10 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

On 3/8/2019 at 11:37 AM, Bert Jones said:

Customers are not necessarily clued up on the requirements of IO's in various countries.

Matter of opinion. If someone plans to travel somewhere they should make some effort to get clued up on the Visa / entry requirements . After all it is your own money you will be wasting otherwise. Airlines might like to think their  responsibility ends when they push you down the arrival jet-way, but of course the immigration forces them to take responsibility for bringing you there without valid travel documents.... they will have to fly you back again at their cost and also may be subject to a substantial fine. Let us say, before you board the plane, it is your responsibility, once on the plane it is theirs!

 

Indeed...  Imagine for a second that My Wife (Thai) and I book a flight for Australia.

Being Thai I know she needs a Visa - we get her one. 

I on the other hand (British) make the assumption that I don't need a Visa which is sort of correct, But, I do need an ETA (Electronic Travel Authorization in lieu of a Visa).

 

IF I do not have this ETA the Airline may quite rightly reject my travel... Who's fault is this? Mine and mine alone.

 

But, it would seem Bert Jones thinks it's the Airlines responsibility to ensure I don't make a dumb mistake. 

 

 

[jacko45k]

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

IF I do not have this ETA the Airline may quite rightly reject my travel... Who's fault is this? Mine and mine alone.

 

An example from a friend.. he wanted to take his Cambodian GF to NZ Got her a NZ Visa, and booked flights. He was to change planes in Oz. They would not let them board in Bangkok as she had no Visa for OZ, despite staying airside, transit visa is required. That was an expensive oversight by him, as he had to dump the booking and pay a short notice non-stop flights to Auckland on Thai for them both. 

Edited March 9, 2019 by jacko45k

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

An example from a friend.. he wanted to take his Cambodian GF to NZ Got her a NZ Visa, and booked flights. He was to change planes in Oz. They would not let them board in Bangkok as she had no Visa for OZ, despite staying airside, transit visa is required. That was an expensive oversight by him, as he had to dump the booking and pay a short notice non-stop flights to Auckland on Thai for them both. 

 

When having an Airside layover in the UAE the laws are different between Abu Dhabi and Dubai. 

Dubai permits Thai's up to 24hrs layover Visa free beyond which a transit Visa is required. 

Abu Dhabi permits Thai's up to 8hrs layover Visa free beyond which a transit Visa is required. 

 

As we usually lay over about 12 hours at the Airport hotel it is my responsibility to ensure my Wife is there legally with adequate Visa's. 

 

People may assume that as they are not leaving the airport and remain in transit that no Visa is required - In many cases their assumption could cost them, its not hard to obtain Visa information.

 

 

 

 

[Bert Jones]

We'll have to agree to disagree...recap - I booked a return flight with BA from BKK to Heathrow. Even without any visa, I would expect re-entry into Thailand on VOA or visa exempt or whatever...BA's online booking site should flag any issues at point of booking, not at the point of returning.

[ThaiBunny]

3 minutes ago, Bert Jones said:

We'll have to agree to disagree...recap - I booked a return flight with BA from BKK to Heathrow. Even without any visa, I would expect re-entry into Thailand on VOA or visa exempt or whatever...BA's online booking site should flag any issues at point of booking, not at the point of returning.

Are you saying BA's booking system is linked to Thai Immigration?

[richard_smith237]

8 minutes ago, Bert Jones said:

We'll have to agree to disagree...recap - I booked a return flight with BA from BKK to Heathrow. Even without any visa, I would expect re-entry into Thailand on VOA or visa exempt or whatever...BA's online booking site should flag any issues at point of booking, not at the point of returning.

 

You mean something like a check-box asking... 'Is your Visa Status Sufficient?' or something more detailed?

 

 

 

 

[PREM-R]

From UK Gov. travel advice for Thailand

Proof of onward travel and funds

Immigration officials in Thailand may ask you for proof of onward travel (e.g. a return or onward air ticket). You should make all reservations before leaving for Thailand. Some airlines have refused to board passengers without evidence of onward travel. Immigration officials may also ask for evidence of adequate finances equivalent to 10,000 baht per person, or 20,000 baht per family (for on-arrival-visa visitors). Other visa types may have different requirements: you should check with the Thai Immigration Authority before travelling.

 

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/thailand/entry-requirements

[steve187]

On 3/6/2019 at 4:58 PM, DrJack54 said:

Your post is confusing. What visa or extension of stay do you have now to be in Thailand. "Stamps equivalent to visa". What's that mean?

only you seem confused, the poster must of had a re-entry stamp, which is the only thing other than a visa, he could have had that would allow entry to Thailand as his visa could have long ago expired.

 

extensions of stay do not allow entry to Thailand

[steve187]

22 minutes ago, Bert Jones said:

We'll have to agree to disagree...recap - I booked a return flight with BA from BKK to Heathrow. Even without any visa, I would expect re-entry into Thailand on VOA or visa exempt or whatever...BA's online booking site should flag any issues at point of booking, not at the point of returning.

at check in at heathrow they would check to see that you had a flight out of Thailand within 30 days of arrival. otherwise they would expect a visa, or a re-entry permit,  nothing is checked at the time of booking

[Bert Jones]

"You mean something like a check-box asking... 'Is your Visa Status Sufficient?' or something more detailed?"

 

Exactly. Just a check box, this would ensure compliance. If I booked 2 singles...one out of BKK and then one back in to BKK, this situation doesn't arise.