Denied Entry at Suvarnabhumi on METV

[Tayaout]

26 minutes ago, lkv said:

If the plane crashes in a field in Isaan am I:

 

A. In Thailand

B. In transit

C. Likely dead

 

Just kidding ????

Airport have special zone outside of any country border. This is why there is always duty free shop. It's outside of any tax jurisdiction. 

 

If you crash in a field you officialy entered the country. Make sure to complete your Tm30 within 24h.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Tayaout

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

On 8/7/2019 at 8:27 PM, jackdd said:

According to Thai law, and also according to ICAO or IATA rules, they are responsible

No they are only responsible if they allow a person onboard that dont have the correct visa. Use logic please. The airline cant be held responsible for immigration refusing entree. 

[BritTim]

25 minutes ago, lkv said:

If the plane crashes in a field in Isaan am I:

 

A. In Thailand

B. In transit

C. Likely dead

 

Just kidding ????

Actually, excluding the case where you are dead, this is an interesting question. If your travel documents are lost in the crash, it becomes even more complicated. The answer, I think, is that you are still in transit. You can apply to the Thai authorities for permission to enter Thailand which, I think, will tend to be granted on humanitarian grounds. That aside, the airline is responsible for all your living costs and medical treatment, and for transporting you out of Thailand. Even if physically in a Thai hospital for weeks, I think it is possible for your status to still be "in transit", with the transit area expanded to include your hospital bed or hotel. Although passengers not admitted to Thailand are the airline's responsibility, immigration needs to agree on the holding area where passengers are kept prior to departure.

[BritTim]

8 minutes ago, SOUTHERNSTAR said:

No they are only responsible if they allow a person onboard that dont have the correct visa. Use logic please. The airline cant be held responsible for immigration refusing entree. 

You may consider it is not logical, but those are the rules. Airlines bitch about it.

 

EDIT: If you want to learn the rules for inadmissible persons and deportees, a good place to start is this ICAO document: https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/news/document/icao-best-practices-annex-9-chapter-5-inadmissible-persons-and-deportees/

Edited August 8, 2019 by BritTim

[jacko45k]

Just now, SOUTHERNSTAR said:

The airline cant be held responsible for immigration refusing entree. 

Presumably unless the reason cited is not having the correct visa?

We seem to hear of cases here where people are turned away for 'insufficient funds' and the carrier becomes responsible. 

[jackdd]

1 hour ago, SOUTHERNSTAR said:

No they are only responsible if they allow a person onboard that dont have the correct visa. Use logic please. The airline cant be held responsible for immigration refusing entree. 

So you think Thailand pays for the ticket out of Thailand if the denied person refuses to pay?

[Santzes]

How are the airlines supposed to check if person "has appropriate means to stay in Thailand" related to these completely random denials of entry, where people have been carrying enough cash?

[ubonjoe]

37 minutes ago, Santzes said:

How are the airlines supposed to check if person "has appropriate means to stay in Thailand" related to these completely random denials of entry, where people have been carrying enough cash?

The can check for what the IATA guidelines state for entry.

With a valid visa for entry it states 20k baht is required but it does not state it has to be cash. 

With no visa to get a visa exempt entry it states ticket out of the country within 30 days and 10k baht.

[lamyai3]

2 hours ago, BritTim said:

The answer, I think, is that you are still in transit.

Agree, entering legally involves clearing the country's immigration. If you were to liken it to an atlas you'd be there already on the physical map, but yet to be permitted entry on the political one. 

[Briggsy]

14 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

Consider this (hypothetically) - a person is denied entry on the grounds that he has insufficient funds when in fact he has the funds (as has been reported). His appeal is denied but somehow he manages to get the matter heard before a court. How would an immigration officer defend his stance if the traveller proved he did have the funds?

The denial of entry would be miraculously and inexplicably reversed before the court hearing.

[elviajero]

7 hours ago, BritTim said:

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

I specifically said land in Thailand to keep it simple. If I haven’t entered Thailand when I land where exactly am I?

By current international rules, you are considered to be in transit.

555. So I landed in a field in the middle of Thailand 5 years ago. Am I still in Transitland?

[BritTim]

10 hours ago, elviajero said:

555. So I landed in a field in the middle of Thailand 5 years ago. Am I still in Transitland?

International regulations (like local laws) do not always accord to what we believe are logical. The decision was made that a country's authorities cannot be forced to take any responsibility for a traveller just because they land at your airport. The traveller is in transit (and the sole responsibility of the airline) until a country agrees to receive them.

 

You will notice that if you arrive at your airport in the middle of Thailand, and leave again for another country without passing through immigration, your passport contains no entry and exit stamps for Thailand. This is not an oversight on the part of Thai immigration.