On 11/23/2025 at 5:09 AM, dinsdale said:

Bit harsh to blame the airline as they were only adhering to the rules set down by Thai Immigration.

Or  were they ?  I don't doubt that they called them but how accurately they described this water damage and whether or not the Thai immigration officer fully understood  is a totally different matter  Sometimes  people who  are empowered to make decisions which negatively affect others develop a taste for doing just that

7 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Water damaged Passport is NOT the airline nor Immigration issue it is the passport individual responsibility,  remember it is government property  you are only the bearer, you do not own the passport 

 

A damaged passport is not considered valid for travel or official use, even if it's just wrinkled or stained. 

 

A passport is considered damaged - and therefore potentially invalid for travel - if the damage affects its ability to be read, identifies you unreliably, or appears to have been tampered with.

 

Rule of thumb used by border officers and airlines:

 

Definitely invalid - you will likely be refused travel

If any of the following apply, your passport is treated as damaged:

- Pages torn, missing, or loose

- The photo page is bent, peeling, lifting, or has water damage

- The laminate around your photo is lifting or bubbled

- Passport has been washed, gone through the rain and warped, or has water stains

- Passport has been chewed, cut, or has holes

- Ink, marker, oil, or large stains obscuring text or your photo

- The electronic chip (in an e-passport) is broken and unreadable

 

 

Possibly invalid - depends on severity

Border officers and airlines may accept or reject:

- Slight water exposure but no warping

- Minor wear on the cover

- Small scuffs or light creases on internal pages

- Faint smudges that do not obscure text or the MRZ (the two lines of machine-readable text at the bottom)

 

So - this case we have 'slight water' exposure - so that places the issue into the bounds of discretion. 

The dates could clearly be read - the water / humidity damage was mild at worst.

 

In this case the airline staff have not used intelligence discretion, they have been stricter than border control to either a) protection themselves under instruction or b) because they could (power hungry twots).

 

 

I'm not sure what this guys ID page of his passport looked like - but the rejection of travel was NOT due to the Airline checkin staff being unable to identity him, nor does it show the passport was tampered with.

 

IMO - this is wholly unfair and I think the 'Groom' in question has solid grounds to sue the Airline for there part in rejecting his travel.

 

10 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Or  were they ?  I don't doubt that they called them but how accurately they described this water damage and whether or not the Thai immigration officer fully understood  is a totally different matter  Sometimes  people who  are empowered to make decisions which negatively affect others develop a taste for doing just that

 

Absolutely - some petty, power-hungry <deleted> take real pleasure in using their tiny sliver of authority to ruin someone’s day.

There are people who should never be given “decision-making power” because they simply don’t have the temperament or the intelligence for it.

 

 

I had one such encounter at UK Airport Security.
My son was 2.5 years old, we had an 18-hour journey ahead of us, and we’d brought bottled milk for him.
We travelled often, so I knew the regulations inside out.

Security stopped us and tried to confiscate the milk. Their reason: “He’s over two years old, so you can’t take it through.”
Wrong. I explained that the law says under-twos must be allowed milk - but over two, security has discretion.

I highlighted that this meant she had the authority to decide whether a bottle of milk for a 2.5-year-old posed any security threat whatsoever.

So I asked her directly: What security risk does this milk present?
She had no answer - just repeated “Not allowed.”

 

I told her plainly: she was now locked into a bad decision, had failed to apply intelligent discretion, and that everyone standing there - colleagues and passengers alike - should understand that her rigid stupidity had just made an already long journey far more difficult for a small child (she said we could buy milk airside - but of course - there was no milk in airside convenience store and coffee shops would not allow us to 'buy' a cup of milk (i.e. for the price of a coffee !! - I guess so many people had already tried that).

 

For take-off and landing, milk was especially important to ease the pressure in a childs ears - a trick we learned early on. Fortunately, our son was chilled, we managed with water, and later bought regular milk during our stopover - we travelled regularly since then too (with cartoned infant milk) and never an issue - it was just that one time.

 

The point is simple: give some people discretion and they wield it like a weapon. Some people are just genuine, dyed-in-the-wool <deleted>.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

In your haste to play gotchya, you have made the same deficient  assumption, that the airport has to consult Thai immigration at Manchester airport. There is no immigration preclearance at Manchester. Thai immigration was contacted. All passengers clear immigration at their port of arrival.Which country other than the UK, has immigration processing at Manchester?

 

As I wrote, Thailand has an immigration contact center that will respond to airline inquiries. It operates 24/7. If you have ever been at BKK you will observe that immigration screening operates  24/7. To do that, there must be an operational data system and supervisory personnel. In addition to the central operations center in Bangkok, there are also agents on hand at the airport who can answer inquiries from airlines.

 

As was reported in the original source for this story;  An Etihad spokesperson said: 'A passenger flying from Manchester to Phuket on 7 October was denied boarding due to visible water damage in their passport at the time of check-in.

'Etihad consulted Thailand's immigration authorities who advised the airline not to board the passenger based on the passport's condition.

 

Your friend also wrote "There is a definate (sic) benefit to the airline to throw a couple people off, for frivolous reasons, if there was over-booking.  There was no evidence of over booking, so why offer an unsubstantiated claim?.  Overbooking requires that there be a full flight.

As I wrote, the flight was on Tuesday, October 7.  Historically, there are no overbookings for offseason flights since the passenger loads are lower than average. Why go off on a tangent about  an conspiracy  by Etihad to  "throw people off for frivolous reasons" when there is absolutely no evidence to support such a malicious and unwarranted claim?  What evidence do you have to even remotely  make such  a claim? 

 

What part of a damaged passport do you not understand? Thai immigration  was asked to review and advised that the  passport was not acceptable. It happens. There is no evidence to support the claim of magical conspiracy to deny the passenger boarding because his seat was needed.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

you are making the same 

I reacted to your incorrect post. Nice attempt to turn it on me, it was your post that's incorrect because you twisted what someone else wrote.

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

A passport is considered damaged - and therefore potentially invalid for travel - if the damage affects its ability to be read, identifies you unreliably, or appears to have been tampered with.

 

Rule of thumb used by border officers and airlines:

 

Definitely invalid - you will likely be refused travel

If any of the following apply, your passport is treated as damaged:

- Pages torn, missing, or loose

- The photo page is bent, peeling, lifting, or has water damage

- The laminate around your photo is lifting or bubbled

- Passport has been washed, gone through the rain and warped, or has water stains

- Passport has been chewed, cut, or has holes

- Ink, marker, oil, or large stains obscuring text or your photo

- The electronic chip (in an e-passport) is broken and unreadable

 

 

Possibly invalid - depends on severity

Border officers and airlines may accept or reject:

- Slight water exposure but no warping

- Minor wear on the cover

- Small scuffs or light creases on internal pages

- Faint smudges that do not obscure text or the MRZ (the two lines of machine-readable text at the bottom)

 

So - this case we have 'slight water' exposure - so that places the issue into the bounds of discretion. 

The dates could clearly be read - the water / humidity damage was mild at worst.

 

In this case the airline staff have not used intelligence discretion, they have been stricter than border control to either a) protection themselves under instruction or b) because they could (power hungry twots).

 

 

I'm not sure what this guys ID page of his passport looked like - but the rejection of travel was NOT due to the Airline checkin staff being unable to identity him, nor does it show the passport was tampered with.

 

IMO - this is wholly unfair and I think the 'Groom' in question has solid grounds to sue the Airline for there part in rejecting his travel.

 

So years ago many were on thin ice , myself included, as a result of having all those TM6 forms stapled in and them not so carefully removed by officials on departure, I have seen several small tears as a result of this but never gave it a second thought. 

This incident is yet another example of a large commercial organisation giving their customers , who they should be respecting and trying to help, a hard time simply  because they can . A trend started by the banks

I as one of our experts claims, flights are only operating at 70% capacity they could have taken him there and flown him home for nothing it would not dent their profits  

The incident is a disgrace I hope he sues them all successfully and broadcasts it  everywhere on social media

4 hours ago, Free the 115 said:

Why is the check-in lass getting your bile?

Thai immigration have recently changed the rule about multiple re entries, so she is serving two masters at the moment, and she has sought clarification from both 

TI say they aren’t getting in. 
Etihad say the dont go because we aren’t flying them back for free. 
so why is it her fault?

you think Etihad would say “no problem” if she hadn’t flagged it? 
everyone in the world knows….

LOOK AFTER YOUR PASSPORT. 

looks <deleted>ty, but that is Etihad/ TI not the poor lass working on the front line

 

 

Personal experience in the UK. Too many jobsworths around - especially in airports. 

25 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Absolutely - some petty, power-hungry <deleted> take real pleasure in using their tiny sliver of authority to ruin someone’s day.

There are people who should never be given “decision-making power” because they simply don’t have the temperament or the intelligence for it.

 

 

I had one such encounter at UK Airport Security.
My son was 2.5 years old, we had an 18-hour journey ahead of us, and we’d brought bottled milk for him.
We travelled often, so I knew the regulations inside out.

Security stopped us and tried to confiscate the milk. Their reason: “He’s over two years old, so you can’t take it through.”
Wrong. I explained that the law says under-twos must be allowed milk - but over two, security has discretion.

I highlighted that this meant she had the authority to decide whether a bottle of milk for a 2.5-year-old posed any security threat whatsoever.

So I asked her directly: What security risk does this milk present?
She had no answer - just repeated “Not allowed.”

 

I told her plainly: she was now locked into a bad decision, had failed to apply intelligent discretion, and that everyone standing there - colleagues and passengers alike - should understand that her rigid stupidity had just made an already long journey far more difficult for a small child (she said we could buy milk airside - but of course - there was no milk in airside convenience store and coffee shops would not allow us to 'buy' a cup of milk (i.e. for the price of a coffee !! - I guess so many people had already tried that).

 

For take-off and landing, milk was especially important to ease the pressure in a childs ears - a trick we learned early on. Fortunately, our son was chilled, we managed with water, and later bought regular milk during our stopover - we travelled regularly since then too (with cartoned infant milk) and never an issue - it was just that one time.

 

The point is simple: give some people discretion and they wield it like a weapon. Some people are just genuine, dyed-in-the-wool <deleted>.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spot on pal, I'm normally  not one to judge a book by its cover but   have you ever noticed  how easy it is to spot these types just by the look on their faces? Or indeed the sound of their voice on the telephone?

Its open season on the honest working man nowadays and . to get decent treatment one needs to be either extremely rich or in the case of the UK  extremely poor and preferably on a small boat

2 minutes ago, DonniePeverley said:

Personal experience in the UK. Too many jobsworths around - especially in airports. 

They are everywhere Bus Stations, Train Stations and  even supermarket car parks ,many dressed in uniforms that look a little bit too similar to real  police uniforms too

Some years back my Thai girlfriend of the day, put my shorts in the washing machine which had my passport in the pocket! It was a real mess but she ironed it and I used it for several more trips.

I did have a few comments from immigration as it was in a real mess, with lots of smeared visa stamps etc. but never refused.

On 11/22/2025 at 3:09 PM, 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.

Thailand would not have denied entry to a young couple on their honeymoon. The airline staff was an ***hole. 

1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

Spot on pal, I'm normally  not one to judge a book by its cover but   have you ever noticed  how easy it is to spot these types just by the look on their faces? Or indeed the sound of their voice on the telephone?

Its open season on the honest working man nowadays and . to get decent treatment one needs to be either extremely rich or in the case of the UK  extremely poor and preferably on a small boat

 

Throughout the vast majority of my life I've been extremely fortunate that I seem to get the benefit of the doubt and very favourable treatment with things going my way nearly always... given the leg room seat, put on an empty row... someone doing a little extra and the interaction is pleasant and polite...    Even with immigration offers, and particularly one in BKK who remembers me and we have polite little chat... 

 

It happens often enough that its notable when I'm being treated with something less than simple indifference...  I put it down to most being just being nice people and my approach being something between neutral and comfortable. 

 

... But sometimes, for whatever reason we get the 'twunt' - that person who, for whatever reason, maybe they are having a bad day, or just don't like the look of you etc... and they decide to just start off on the wrong foot and make proceedings awkward - its rare, but it happens and there's not a lot we can do about it when we are a captive audience; i.e. when needing something at Bank or at a check-in counter etc.

 

In this case - the 'captive audience' faced a grade A1 twunt who clearly went out of their way to make someone elses day hell. 

 

 

39 minutes ago, kwaiYai said:

Some years back my Thai girlfriend of the day, put my shorts in the washing machine which had my passport in the pocket! It was a real mess but she ironed it and I used it for several more trips.

I did have a few comments from immigration as it was in a real mess, with lots of smeared visa stamps etc. but never refused.

Way way back in the day - I arrived in country, exhausted, got home and threw my clothes in the laundry...

A day or two later - a knock at the door - it was the maid who had  a very sheepish look - she handed me my 'soggy passport' !!! 

I called the British Embassy whose response was "Why is always boys who do this ?  !!!!! ....come in and we'll sort it"...   my ID page was still legible so I could apply for a replacement there and then which took a couple of weeks... 

2 hours ago, Wake Up1 said:

Thailand would not have denied entry to a young couple on their honeymoon. The airline staff was an ***hole. 

On 11/22/2025 at 11:10 PM, Emdog said:

I recently renewed my US passport and for an extra $30 I got a credit card size passport besides regular. Of course not told when applying, but disclaimer on back says valid for domestic travel (since when is passport required for domestic US flights? I know, just wait...), international land and sea travel US, Canada, Mexico and couple Caribbean spots but not international flights.... don't know if chip, but has bar code and some other fancy antifaking bits. I guess it is a start...

I guess you missed it, but right under the check box for the card it states that the The U.S. passport card is not valid for international air travel.

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Yes - but how much information was communicated ???

 

Phone call: "We have a man here with a defaced passport - Will you accept him ?"...

 

Or..  "theres is slight water damage on the passport we think its ok but want conformation - we are sending you photos so you can make an informed decision".... 

 

The way such questions a framed have a strong impact on the outcome.

 

 

In reality - I've travelled through Passport control with far worse (rips from taking OK TM6 cards, smudges stamps from an immigration officer mistake etc)...  After this thread - I just triple checked my passport to make sure there is no damage or rips - because with frequent use - thats not uncommon.

 

The fact that this was even picked up and highlighted in the first place shows that the staff were just looking to be difficult (IMO) - the IMPORTANT part is the ID page - nothing else matters other than the prospective of showing a travel history.

 

 

I do not know what information was  transmitted. However, I do know that an airline has the ability to forward an image of the document in question. Checkin equipment and procedures are very different today than they were 10 years ago. There are scanners which can take a high quality image and transmit the image within seconds to a central hub for review.

 

There was no incentive or benefit to the airline to deny boarding or to cause a fuss over a passport.  I expect that the airline has been hit with fines and warnings for passengers who did not have compliant passports and visas and the attention to detail reflects that.

 

Yes, you may have passed through with what you believe were defects. Good for you. Do drivers always get nicked when they speed or park in no parking zones? Fly enough and one day you will see something like this  at the check in counter. Usually, its a passenger having a fit because the visa is not acceptable or missing.

Sum nam na. The rules are the rules. Mainly because these documents are more and more scanned these days. Whining is childish, it is well known that the travel companies require valid travel documents, thus he cannot claim any refund. I advise him to start a crowd fund, being British he should be familiar with this process

Projection of a personal bias

 

4 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

So years ago many were on thin ice , myself included, as a result of having all those TM6 forms stapled in and them not so carefully removed by officials on departure, I have seen several small tears as a result of this but never gave it a second thought. 

This incident is yet another example of a large commercial organisation giving their customers , who they should be respecting and trying to help, a hard time simply  because they can . A trend started by the banks

I as one of our experts claims, flights are only operating at 70% capacity they could have taken him there and flown him home for nothing it would not dent their profits  

The incident is a disgrace I hope he sues them all successfully and broadcasts it  everywhere on social media

 

How is this another example of a large commercial organization giving their customers a hard time simply  because they can? Etihad did not do anything wrong. What part of of the   Etihad statement do you not comprehend 'Etihad consulted Thailand's immigration authorities who advised the airline not to board the passenger based on the passport's condition

Etihad did not take the decision to deny entry to Thailand. Thailand immigration did that.

 

3 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

Spot on pal, I'm normally  not one to judge a book by its cover but   have you ever noticed  how easy it is to spot these types just by the look on their faces? Or indeed the sound of their voice on the telephone?

Its open season on the honest working man nowadays and . to get decent treatment one needs to be either extremely rich or in the case of the UK  extremely poor and preferably on a small boat

 

And have you ever seen or heard the people they have to deal with? Often the passengers who run into these problems are rude, or stupid or did not read the regulations that apply. In this case, the passenger is not saying Etihad treated him poorly. It was the travel/tour agent TUI that cancelled his return flight and accommodations. The airline is getting blamed, however, the passenger chose to go through a travel agent. Where was the travel agent in all this?

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Wake Up1 said:

Thailand would not have denied entry to a young couple on their honeymoon. The airline staff was an a$$hole. 

 

An a$$hole is  one who  blames someone for something that was not their decision. easier than having to deal with reality. 

'Etihad consulted Thailand's immigration authorities who advised the airline not to board the passenger based on the passport's condition

 

 

4 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

So years ago many were on thin ice , myself included, as a result of having all those TM6 forms stapled in and them not so carefully removed by officials on departure, I have seen several small tears as a result of this but never gave it a second thought. 

This incident is yet another example of a large commercial organisation giving their customers , who they should be respecting and trying to help, a hard time simply  because they can . A trend started by the banks

I as one of our experts claims, flights are only ope, rating at 70% capacity they could have taken him there and flown him home for nothing it would not dent their profits  

The incident is a disgrace I hope he sues them all successfully and broadcasts it  everywhere on social media

Not years ago either.

Last year I was denied boarding  by Thai Vietjet from Da Nang to Bangkok, due to a staple hole developing into a slight tear, lower corner, page 16. They said Bangkok Immigration had been advised and also passed it as a reject.

Opal boarded, and I then caught a later flight with Air Asia who had no problem with acceptance.

 

The two chatty female immigration officers at DMK thought it was a great hoot with plenty of giggling going on.

 

Must have been a slow day at the office all around.

So if your passport has a smudge on it, however small, change it. Good to know.

21 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You missed the point...    We knew exactly the weights we had - we just weren't allowed to 'pool' luggage - with those we family (same surname) w were travelling with - staff deciding to be particularly awkward instead - some are just power hungry aholes.

My thinking was that maybe you could have redistributed the loads before you got to the airport. I was unaware that you already knew the weights beforehand. 

It is absurd that your group was not allowed to pool your luggage allowance. Front line airport staff aside, its the petty minded aholes higher up that make these rules that really annoy me. I saw your baby milk post. What is the matter with them? 

16 hours ago, Wake Up1 said:

Thailand would not have denied entry to a young couple on their honeymoon. The airline staff was an ***hole. 

Wow! All of a sudden a post on AN about how caring Immigration is. 
Normally the responses is 

“As usual the new rules and information provided by immigration is ambiguous and varies on interpretation”

akso, Etihad is a business, and will know more about the vagaries of Thai immigration than you or I, and if there’s a strong chance that they have to fly them back for free, then why send them out in the first place?

5 hours ago, potless said:

On 11/24/2025 at 7:43 AM, richard_smith237 said:

You missed the point...    We knew exactly the weights we had - we just weren't allowed to 'pool' luggage - with those we family (same surname) w were travelling with - staff deciding to be particularly awkward instead - some are just power hungry aholes.

My thinking was that maybe you could have redistributed the loads before you got to the airport. I was unaware that you already knew the weights beforehand. 

It is absurd that your group was not allowed to pool your luggage allowance. Front line airport staff aside, its the petty minded aholes higher up that make these rules that really annoy me. I saw your baby milk post. What is the matter with them? 

 

Oh.. they took it a step further...     We took the bags away to 'redistribute the loads'... 

Then they said they can't accept the bags as they know some of my items were in my fathers bag !!

 

It was like one of those scenes from the 'reality airport TV shows' - except I was the one 'just about holding it together' but right on the edge of snapping - I think thats what the girl wanted - that little power-trip to try and get us kicked off the flight - I've no idea why - it was just one of those obscure moments. 

 

The 'only' minor revenge I did have was when I knew all was lost already - and the 'button pusher' checking me in stated...  'You must be stupid if you didn't check the terms and conditions' (about pooling baggage)..

Oohh... Button pushed, incandescent with rage inside I politely replied... "No, I'm not stupid, but you are, thats why I'm going skiing and you are doing that job" !!!...   

 

I Did check the terms and conditions later - no issues with pooling baggage - I wrote a coplaint to easyJet - not a response - I've never flown them since.

 

Jobsworths and button pushers - they're around in these positions and the sneak up on you out of the blue and turn a perfectly normal situation into a nightmare because they can.

 

 

On 11/23/2025 at 4:58 AM, 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.

 

Taking a cue from Immigration Officers no doubt!

7 hours ago, Free the 115 said:

Wow! All of a sudden a post on AN about how caring Immigration is. 
Normally the responses is 

“As usual the new rules and information provided by immigration is ambiguous and varies on interpretation”

akso, Etihad is a business, and will know more about the vagaries of Thai immigration than you or I, and if there’s a strong chance that they have to fly them back for free, then why send them out in the first place?

 

A) there are no 'new' rules - the rules regarding damage to passports are fairly universal and also down to 'discretion' of the immigration officer.

 

B) Etihad may be aware of the rules - but they certainly do not know more than 'us' (the forum collective to who travel to 100's of destinations each year) and its certain the forum collective know a great deal more than a check-in staff member - thats why check-in staff often have to 'ask us to point out our Thai Visa' because they are not trained to identify the 100's of different visa types from many different countries.

 

C) 1000's of passports will enter Thailand each day in worse state than this - Thai Immigration are not being benevolent about this - its just not an issue for them unless the ID page is damaged an appears either tampered with or parts illegible. 

 

D) IF entering 'visa exempt' as they likely were, the honey-mooning couple would have had a return ticket already - Etihad would not have been on the hook. Additionally, if in double airlines have wavers to cover their liability in such situations (I know - because I've signed one in the past for a passport gaving less than 6 months validity).

 

---------

 

The reality is - this was a non-event. Thai immigration were never going to flag this passport - it was not an issue at all until someone started being a power hungry d!<k....

 

Now - for anyone being 'sanctimonious' about this - go and check their passports - ensure there are no micro-tears, that the pages aren't dog eared, that there are not staple holes, and that none of the stamps are slightly smudged.... 

... My passport is not perfect - some stamps are smudged (by the Immi-officers themselves), previous passports have had tears from taking out the TM6 too....

 

Preventing travel for such insignificant cosmetic blemishing on a passport is fortunately not an existing precedent or many of us would be flagged and face frequent issues.

 

sounds like the flight was overbooked and full