27 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

When the passports are Biometric already

What biometrics does a UK Passport contain? Never had fingerprints taken or retinal scan. And how accurate are facial measurements taken off a passport sized photo? I know that it must work, because it does, but I find it hard to imagine.

3 minutes ago, Will Iam Not said:

What biometrics does a UK Passport contain? Never had fingerprints taken or retinal scan. And how accurate are facial measurements taken off a passport sized photo? I know that it must work, because it does, but I find it hard to imagine.

 

6 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Why not a phone app?

Not everybody got a smartphone 

Off topic posts removed.

11 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Looks like minimal damage to a previous stamp. If this was all it was this is insane. Bit harsh to blame the airline as they were only adhering to the rules set down by Thai Immigration. The situation could have been worse if Etihad wasn't as over zealous, allowed them to board and they were denied entry into Thailand upon arrival.

Do you work for etihad? These <deleted> need a take  a reality test !

2 hours ago, Will Iam Not said:

Embed the chip on the person at birth. 

Thats not a bad idea, they chip dog’s and cat’s don’t they??

2 minutes ago, Usnh said:

Do you work for etihad? These <deleted> need a take  a reality test !

If you read the article properly you'll see they were following Thai Immigration gudelines as I pointed out in my post. Over doing it? Yes, IMO but as I also stated Thai Immigration may have denied them entry. I guess Thai Immigration should be more specific as to what constitutes water damage.

9 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

If you read the article properly you'll see they were following Thai Immigration gudelines as I pointed out in my post. Over doing it? Yes, IMO but as I also stated Thai Immigration may have denied them entry. I guess Thai Immigration should be more specific as to what constitutes water damage.

 

Thai Immigration may also deny someone if they don't have 20,000 baht funds and are entering Visa free - but the airline doesn't check that... 

 

...  there is either more to the story here - or the check-in staff were a nasty vindictive ayholes on a power trip...    The ruined someones honeymoon because of a slightly smudged stamp.

Probably a good thing, as going for your honeymoon to Thailand in Phuket/Pattaya/Koh Samui etc. probably isn't the best destination, and it's all flooded in the south right now anyhow... he would go back thinking "Duh! What the hell did I just get involved in". He'd be a changed man and she would probably have the hump over the holiday... once dudes have seen the light, hard for them to forget it.

 

2400 quid for a honeymoon for 2 from Mcr to Phuket, via Dxb, will not go very far.

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Thai Immigration may also deny someone if they don't have 20,000 baht funds and are entering Visa free - but the airline doesn't check that... 

 

...  there is either more to the story here - or the check-in staff were a nasty vindictive ayholes on a power trip...    The ruined someones honeymoon because of a slightly smudged stamp.

Not the airlines responsibility to check funds. I point out again though that yes it was the airline that did this but it was done in accordance to Thai Immigration guidelines. Ridiculous? Absolutely but as I have said a couple of times it was deemed the passport was water damaged. Had the been allowed to board and Thai Immigration denied them entry due to a water damaged passport then possibly the airline would be held accountable and this couple would've been in a worse situation. I would like to know what Thai Immigration considers water damage.

17 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

and it's all flooded in the south right now

No flooding on Phuket.

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No flooding on Phuket.

Well, I didn't say Phuket... just the general "south" and there might be more rain soon too. Who knows their travel plans were other than going to Phuket? Maybe you have a crystal ball at home, but I don't.

34 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Not the airlines responsibility to check funds. I point out again though that yes it was the airline that did this but it was done in accordance to Thai Immigration guidelines. Ridiculous? Absolutely but as I have said a couple of times it was deemed the passport was water damaged. Had the been allowed to board and Thai Immigration denied them entry due to a water damaged passport then possibly the airline would be held accountable and this couple would've been in a worse situation. I would like to know what Thai Immigration considers water damage.

 

I understand your point - but there are work around so that the Airline is not on the hook.

 

If the airline is going by immigration requirements - then check the passport and other requirements: i.e. Funds - of course they don't do this - So IF someone were to be refused entry based on lack of funds, are the airline not also accountable for not checking that ?

 

Airlines have waver documentation that absolves them of responsibility should entry be refused.

 

Equally so - this man travelled internationally 14x on the same passport in the previous 6 years - so the Damage to the passport was not picked up previously (it may have been recent) or more likely - the check-in staff the previous 14x were not ayholes. 

 

I've dealt with difficult airline staff in the UK and they can be outrageous jobsworths and you don't have a leg to stand-on... 

In my case it was about pooling luggage (with my family, all with the same surname) - I was slightly over 5kgs - others in the party were 10 kgs under - the airline (easyjet) forced me to pay for 5kgs excess and would not allow pooling !!! - the check-in staff were particularly obtuse - I imagine this was a similar situation with check-in staff being particularly difficult and awkward - this was not a solid enough reason to prevent them travel (IMO of course) and there is no way Thai Immigration would have prevented entry - the dates were legible - the water damage was slight at best.

 

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Equally so - this man travelled internationally 14x on the same passport in the previous 6 years - so the Damage to the passport was not picked up previously (it may have been recent) or more likely - the check-in staff the previous 14x were not ayholes. 

Yes, I noticed this also but the question sprung to mind were any of these travels to Thailand and if so when? I've entered Thailand with a water damaged passport (border crossing) but this was years ago.

1 hour ago, Sir Dude said:

Well, I didn't say Phuket... just the general "south" and there might be more rain soon too. Who knows their travel plans were other than going to Phuket? Maybe you have a crystal ball at home, but I don't.

Your post,

"Probably a good thing, as going for your honeymoon to Thailand in Phuket/Pattaya/Koh Samui etc. probably isn't the best destination, and it's all flooded in the south right now"

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

so the Damage to the passport was not picked up

This damage was not general but to a thai stamp. That's an important distinction when entering Thailand.

34 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Yes, I noticed this also but the question sprung to mind were any of these travels to Thailand and if so when? I've entered Thailand with a water damaged passport (border crossing) but this was years ago.

 

No - I don't think they were. But it takes a special kind of person to scroll through a passport and look at a 6 year old stamp and deem that 'passport damage'.  The stamp itself is irrelevant, as is the destination - the passport is ether deemed fit for use / i.e. un-damaged or not.

 

Obviously its debatable - but that is not Passport Damage IMO - its slight smudging - possibly from the humidity of being carried in a pocket in hot conditions etc.

12 minutes ago, stevenl said:

This damage was not general but to a thai stamp. That's an important distinction when entering Thailand.

 

Is it really though ?  its 6 years old - I think the water staining being on a Thai stamp might be somewhat of a red-herring here - Did the check-in staff even identify the stamp as a Thai Immigration stamp ? If they 'could' then surely the damage is no significant enough to cause concern.

 

Staff are not trained to identify the stamps of the 100's of different countries around the world - so where the 'water stained stamp' was issued is irrelevant I would think.

 

 

Baiting post removed 

5 hours ago, Bagwain said:

Quite a few years back I was travelling out of Thailand. Immigration pulled me up and grilled me over water damaged Thai stamps. I argued that it rains in Thailand & I could help it. After 10 min they made me sign another entry card and let me out. D/heads.

I argued that it rains in Thailand.

 

And you failed to protect it? What other possessions of yours were damaged by the Thai rains?

D/heads - who exactly in this situation?

1 hour ago, ravip said:

I argued that it rains in Thailand.

 

And you failed to protect it? What other possessions of yours were damaged by the Thai rains?

D/heads - who exactly in this situation?

 

Are you saying you never ever once dropped a passport, carried it around in your pocket etc in a hot & humid country...  never spilled a drink on something, never had an accident ?

 

You are calling people d-heads which is a major signal of your personality type and you've thrown in a healthy dollop of 20/20 sanctimonious hindsight... 

 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

The fact he was prevented boarding shows there was a risk.

 

Anything wrong with a passport that could prevent a trip replace it, some dumbos don't even realise they have less than 6 months left

 

An unknown risk...    a woman encountered the same issue this year earlier due to a 'tear' in her passport.

 

How many of us are 100% certain that there is no 'smudged stamp' or no tiny page tear in our passports ?

 

I'm certain I've had both in nearly all of my passports given the amount of use they get (always filling up way before they expire).

 

 

richard_smith237 making more sense in this thread than is generally advisable.

 

Never-the-less, full marks.

18 hours ago, Lightyear said:

Feel sorry for them both. Airlines these days seem to take delight in enforcing petty rules to the letter. Discretion doesn't come into it.

Not necessarily the airline's doing. The article does state that  The airline noted consultation with Thai immigration authorities. 

It may have also sent an image of the passport stamp. What is the airline to do if Thailand Immigration says no entry?  If the passenger boards and is denied entry;

- Passenger will complain and blame the airline for letting the passenger board without advising of the issue.

- Thai Immigration blocks entry and levies the fine against the airline and obliges that the airline fly the passenger out on next flight.

What's the fine now? 100,000+ baht?

 

There is no benefit to the airline  to deny boarding in a case like this.

8 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Not necessarily the airline's doing. The article does state that  The airline noted consultation with Thai immigration authorities. 

 

I didn't realize there were Thai Immigration Officers present 24/7 at Manchester Airport.  I suppose you have never met anybody in your life who lies to "save face"?

 

8 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

There is no benefit to the airline  to deny boarding in a case like this.

 

There is a definate benefit to the airline to throw a couple people off, for frivolous reasons, if there was over-booking.

33 minutes ago, CanadaSam said:

 

I didn't realize there were Thai Immigration Officers present 24/7 at Manchester Airport.  I suppose you have never met anybody in your life who lies to "save face"?

 

 

There is a definate benefit to the airline to throw a couple people off, for frivolous reasons, if there was over-booking.

 

Your  comment relies on your own personal assumptions, and obvious  inexperience with air travel and its regulations..

False Assumption No. 1: Thai immigration  closes down.

Fact: Thai immigration is a 24/7 operation 365 days of the year, and its international service center does not close.

There is no benefit for the airline to "save face" with the position that Thai immigration was consulted. The claim can be verified, and if the airline is found to be lying, has serious consequences.

 

False Assumption  No. 2:  There is a definate benefit to the airline to throw a couple people off, for frivolous reasons, if there was over-booking.

Fact: The flight was on Tuesday, October 7.   Have you looked at the airline schedule and passenger loads?

If you had, you would have seen that on an annual basis, passenger loads are below 87%. The 87% includes high season when flights go out at 100% load.   The flight was midweek in low season, so the passenger load was most likely closer to 70%. This means that there was little if any likelihood of a denied boarding because of over booking.  Even if overbooked, the airline offers 2 wide body flights daily, and would have rebooked the next day without need of cooking up a conspiracy that you claim.

 

It is observed that some people offer claims of conspiracy because it is easier to deal with their invented reasons than the  reality which they find uncomfortable.

 

Not a very correct post because for the last 9 years leaving from Gatwick and  Heathrow they have never looked past my first page my passport there's no way no airlines ever go through my stamps and they do not ask for a visa or anything going into Thailand even on a one-way ticket. I am flown this year from the UK and from Canada several times on different airlines all one way tickets and nobody's ever passed the front page of the passport. And how and who would they call a tie immigration officer at with the time change to check.

On 11/23/2025 at 3:19 AM, Georgealbert said:

Etihad confirmed the refusal, stating the passenger’s passport did not meet entry requirements due to visible water damage. The airline noted consultation with Thai immigration authorities and emphasised that British passports must be machine-readable and fully intact, including no water damage, torn pages, delamination, or illegible details.

Bypass Thailand, much better places to visit.

So who were the airlines that let him fly 12 times before with it and to where and was it just because the previous stamp was blurred for his destination of Thailand ?

Would be funny if the same airline had flown him to Thailand since 2019 😄