34 days Thailand.No visa.

[Sheryl]

2 hours ago, twix38 said:

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 you want to stay 60 just get a tourist visa.  Simple.

[geisha]

KhunBENQ, thanks , I’ve sent them the available cheap one way flights and explained , also how to get to the IO in Samui and the docs. It all seems easy when you are used to this, I do it all the time ( properly) but can be confusing for 1 st timers. Cheers !

[twix38]

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.

Edited December 30, 2019 by twix38

[Salerno]

Would you be a millennial by any chance?

[twix38]

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

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by twix38

[Salerno]

Senile then?

[twix38]

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. 

[Salerno]

As opposed to whinging that when you turn up for a 30 day visa exempt instead of getting a proper visa for the time you intend to stay you should be able to tell them you are actually staying twice as long as the stamp is valid for because the Thais are kind enough to make it easy for you to get an extension in country. OK, got you. Didn't realise countries should bow to visitors demands so much.

[DrJack54]

1 hour ago, twix38 said:

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.

I don't know what your on but thinking it's doing damage. As I have posted earlier, the visa exempt 30 day is generous along with avenue to apply for an extension. 

Your pushing a mute point. I see this often with young children wailing. Called dummy spit. Move on. 

You want fly in on visa exempt have onward flight. Alternatives already outlined above. 

 

[EricTh]

It is better to get a 30 day extension rather than pay an overstay fine.

 

An overstay might mean you will be marked in their system and your passport and will affect your future entries into Thailand.

Edited December 30, 2019 by EricTh

[DrJack54]

37 minutes ago, EricTh said:

It is better to get a 30 day extension rather than pay an overstay fine.

 

An overstay might mean you will be marked in their system and your passport and will affect your future entries into Thailand.

No. While throughout this thread I have consistently stated avoid overstay the reason is nothing to do with reentry.

You can exit with overstay pay fine and return next day. No issue.

Edited December 30, 2019 by DrJack54

[EricTh]

10 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

No. While throughout this thread I have consistently stated avoid overstay the reason is nothing to do with reentry.

You can exit with overstay pay fine and return next day. No issue.

Really? 

 

If you have a long history of overstaying, then you will be banned one day.

 

Go to immigration and get  a list of overstaying of xxx days ban list, I have seen it before.

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by EricTh

[twix38]

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.

Edited December 31, 2019 by twix38

[DrJack54]

4 minutes ago, EricTh said:

Really? 

 

If you have a long history of overstaying, then you will be banned one day.

 

Go to immigration and get  a list of overstaying of xxx days ban list, I have seen it before.

 

What thread are you reading. The OP,s friends are making first visit to Thailand and option of paying for 4 day overstay has been suggested. They could do that and return straight away. Zero problem.

I advised to avoid overstay.

[ubonjoe]

25 minutes ago, EricTh said:

If you have a long history of overstaying, then you will be banned one day.

Go to immigration and get  a list of overstaying of xxx days ban list, I have seen it before.

You have to stay longer that 90 consecutive days for to be banned from entering the country. It is not a cumulative number of days on a overstay.

If caught with an overstay it is a ban no matter how many days you have been on a overstay.

[Dan O]

14 hours ago, twix38 said:

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

 

becuase it's there law and their country. Why should they change their immigration law for tourist visits just to suit you? Do other countries do that????? No as a matter of facy most other countries don't allow tourist to come in as easily as Thailand. But there's always people with views like yours that try to skirt the process for your own benefit and cry foul if they don't get their way

[Isaanbiker]

23 hours ago, KhunBENQ said:

 

All written, but why not again:

 

Online book a cheap oneway flight out of Thailand within the 30 day period.

E.g. AirAsia Phuket-Kuala Lumpur or Don Mueang - Kuala Lumpur (~2000 Baht). When in Thailand forget about it.

 

Then about one week before return flight go to local immigration and apply for 30 day extension of visa exempt entry, 1900 Baht.

 

This makes you safe for checkin in France and avoid overstay.

Avoid overstay AT ALL PRICE! There is real hunt going on!

One, or two days on overstay was the reason for some threads here. 

[twix38]

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!

Edited December 31, 2019 by twix38

[Peter Denis]

46 minutes ago, twix38 said:

...

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!

...

Posters cannot change the rules/regulations enforced by thai immigration. 

They can only inform you of the existence of the rules and how you can deal with them.

> Almost certainly you will not be asked by thai border-immigration on arrival to show an outward-bound ticket for the 30-day Visa Exempt they will stamp you in.

But you might be refused to board your inbound flight when you cannot show an onward flight ticket.

Simply prepare yourself, so that when asked you can buy an on-line ticket on-the-spot

There are several options to deal with this:

1. Buy a cheap one-way throw-away ticket (e.g. AirAsia flight HuaHin to KL for approx 850 THB)

2. Book a full-refund ticket using Expedia, and cancel it after arrival

3. Buy a rental-ticket (Google > fly onward) valid for 24h - 36 hours, which costs approx 10 US $

Edited December 31, 2019 by Peter Denis

[ubonjoe]

A post flaming members has been removed.

And some bickerting posts. Time to end it.

[twix38]

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. 

Edited December 31, 2019 by twix38

[sirocco]

no problem, I was repeating your sentence which amused me.
In France, a flight crew strike (flight attendants, pilots, perhaps even baggage handlers and others) is planned for January 6.
The people of Cannes are flying on the 11th, it seems to me.
Strikes are known when it starts, but not when it ends.
It was just a joke or a reflection.

[DrJack54]

15 minutes ago, twix38 said:

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. 

A flight out is also required for setv. If longer stay is required, can chat with consulate and explain you intend to apply for extension. They MAY allow flight out past 60 days. If that occurs the airline will not ask to see onward flight as you have visa. 

Edited December 31, 2019 by DrJack54

[EricTh]

8 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

You have to stay longer that 90 consecutive days for to be banned from entering the country. It is not a cumulative number of days on a overstay.

If caught with an overstay it is a ban no matter how many days you have been on a overstay.

If somebody has a history of overstays in the country that is less than 90 days, wouldn't that show up in their passports?

 

 

[ubonjoe]

20 minutes ago, EricTh said:

If somebody has a history of overstays in the country that is less than 90 days, wouldn't that show up in their passports?

Yes it would. But it would not cause you to be banned from entry to the country for 1 year which is for over 90 days but less than a year.

It could cause a denial of entry but there is no rule for that.

List of bans.

[geisha]

Oh dear, seems I have opened a can of worms ! I agree with everyone. But, if the “ online” SETV we have to apply for in France, didn’t entail us having to travel 1000 km and probably a hotel overnight , then there would be thousands of french arriving with paid visas. ! Just another difficulty for tourists. Not that it applies to my friends, I’ve fully explained the necessary procedure. 
Think this thread should be closed now. Happy new year.