Ticket Out Of Thailand

[madmitch]

I have a customer arriving tonight on Jetstar from Singapore.

She was originally booked on Tiger but Tiger refused to allow her to check in as she did not have a flight ticket out of Thailand. They refused to give a refund, of course.

She has a flight out of KL to London (Air Asia) and planned to get to KL overland but Tiger refused to accept this.

I have never known an airline do this before.

It's obviously not a Thai Government directive or else Jetstar would not have accepted her.

I wonder if Tiger had overbooked and were looking for reasons to bump passengers off the flight, though this practice is not usual with budget airlines. Or is it another low-cost airline money making scam?

I haven't spoken to her yet but will suggest she fights to get a refund plus any additional amounts she may have had to pay Jetstar.

Has anyone else come across this? I'll maybe post again when I have spoken to her directly (this info came through her friend who has been waiting for her for the past few hours).

[whybother]

Why didn't your friend buy a cheap onward ticket?

[BarnicaleBob]

This is a common practice with most airlines as there is a rule that says if a person flies into a country and ends up not meeting the standards at their point of entry and they have to be kicked out the airline that brought them there must pay to fly them back home. Therefore most airlines refuse to take a chance on having to pay to fly the passenger back home.

[paulchiangmai]

This is a common practice with most airlines as there is a rule that says if a person flies into a country and ends up not meeting the standards at their point of entry and they have to be kicked out the airline that brought them there must pay to fly them back home. Therefore most airlines refuse to take a chance on having to pay to fly the passenger back home.

I came here more than twelve years ago Bob departing London Heathrow on BA with a one way ticket to Bangkok. At checkin they pulled me aside and had me sign a form saying I accept they would not be responsible for me should I be refused entry. No problems at all and so simple.

[jybkk]

This is a common practice with most airlines as there is a rule that says if a person flies into a country and ends up not meeting the standards at their point of entry and they have to be kicked out the airline that brought them there must pay to fly them back home. Therefore most airlines refuse to take a chance on having to pay to fly the passenger back home.

So the question is: why would Tiger airways think this person is at risk of being refused entry in Thailand? Short-stay requirements are pretty low at Thai immigration. Almost anyone can get the 30-days tourist visa.

Could OP give us more details about this visitor?

[phuketrichard]

I flew phuket-sing last week on tiger and they did not ask for a ticket out for me ( on a retirment extenison or my cambodian gf (on a tourist visa and no ticket out of Thailand)

I have never heard of this.

How was your cusotmer dressed??

[theoldgit]

I flew with Emirates from Hong Kong to Bangkok last week on the return part of a return ticket, so effectively a one way ticket, couldn't help noticing that the check-in operative was giving my, pretty full, passport more than the normal cursory glance, she even called a colleague over. I asked for the passport and then pointed out my latest extension of stay and re-entry permit which seemed to satisfy her.

[madmitch]

This is a common practice with most airlines as there is a rule that says if a person flies into a country and ends up not meeting the standards at their point of entry and they have to be kicked out the airline that brought them there must pay to fly them back home. Therefore most airlines refuse to take a chance on having to pay to fly the passenger back home.

So the question is: why would Tiger airways think this person is at risk of being refused entry in Thailand? Short-stay requirements are pretty low at Thai immigration. Almost anyone can get the 30-days tourist visa.

Could OP give us more details about this visitor?

Irish lady. I can't give any more info as she arrived after I had gone to bed and left for Ko Phi Phi while I was out this morning!

I forgot to add that the flight she had from KL to London was for the end of next week so well within the 30 day period. It just wasn't from Thailand so a bit of common sense should have been used here but wasn't.

Just seems odd that some airlines are doing this and others aren't. We have many backpackers staying who fly in then go overland and vice versa. And what about those arriving by land: do they have to show documentary evidence that they'll be leaving within the 15 days?

It's the inconsistency and different interpretation of the rules which are annoying.

[BarnicaleBob]

This is a common practice with most airlines as there is a rule that says if a person flies into a country and ends up not meeting the standards at their point of entry and they have to be kicked out the airline that brought them there must pay to fly them back home. Therefore most airlines refuse to take a chance on having to pay to fly the passenger back home.

So the question is: why would Tiger airways think this person is at risk of being refused entry in Thailand? Short-stay requirements are pretty low at Thai immigration. Almost anyone can get the 30-days tourist visa.

Could OP give us more details about this visitor?

That because the rule only applies to short stay or tourist visas and not to people on long term visas such as for retirement or work. Again this is because of an international agreement with all airlines that they will be responsible if they land a short stay or tourist in a country and that person ends up stranded (the airline then will be responsible to pay for that person's flight home). Now some airlines treat this policy with their own best interest and make company rules of their own to insure they do not get stuck having to pay for someone's flight. Thus, each airline may treat these situations differently. This does not apply to other modes of transportation such as train or bus.

[Nisa]

This is a common practice with most airlines as there is a rule that says if a person flies into a country and ends up not meeting the standards at their point of entry and they have to be kicked out the airline that brought them there must pay to fly them back home. Therefore most airlines refuse to take a chance on having to pay to fly the passenger back home.

I came here more than twelve years ago Bob departing London Heathrow on BA with a one way ticket to Bangkok. At checkin they pulled me aside and had me sign a form saying I accept they would not be responsible for me should I be refused entry. No problems at all and so simple.

That is odd as the airlines can be fined if the person is denied entry due to something the airline is bound by law to check such as a return ticket out of Thailand. I know some places/airlines don't check for return ticket but the part about signing was more a mental game with you because they are by law responsible to bring the passenger back if they are refused entry.

[Nisa]

This is a common practice with most airlines as there is a rule that says if a person flies into a country and ends up not meeting the standards at their point of entry and they have to be kicked out the airline that brought them there must pay to fly them back home. Therefore most airlines refuse to take a chance on having to pay to fly the passenger back home.

So the question is: why would Tiger airways think this person is at risk of being refused entry in Thailand? Short-stay requirements are pretty low at Thai immigration. Almost anyone can get the 30-days tourist visa.

Could OP give us more details about this visitor?

The immigration laws clearly state you need to have a return/onward ticket if flying to Thailand without a Visa. The airlines by law need to check this and they will both be fined and have the responsibility of returning the passenger home if they are denied entry. It has nothing to do with a passenger's looks or anything like that it is simply a matter of airlines who check and those that don't. Almost all major airlines in the US are going to check but I know some of the European airlines don't.

[tig28]

That because the rule only applies to short stay or tourist visas and not to people on long term visas such as for retirement or work.

Hi Bob

Anyone flying into Thailand with a current Visa (any type of visa) can do so on a one way ticket. Those who are relying on the 30 day permit to stay on arrival must posses a ticket out of Thailand.

To the OP

Did your visitor have a Visa for Thailand?

[Mario2008]

Yes, it is a requiremetn that passengers who arrive in Thailand without a visa must have proof of onward travel within the period they are allowed to stay without a visa. Airlines can be fined for taking a passenger without such proof.

The airline was in its right to refuse boarding, although a bit form in this case. Inside Asia it is often not checked, but the requirement is there none the less.

[gopbi]

Most airlines use a system called TIMATIC, which is run by IATA, the worldwide industry trade and support group.. Most all airlines of the world are members.. The TIMATIC database is usually incorporated directly into the airlines check-in systems. The database is constantly updated as rules change and it covers nearly every possible conceivable travel situation (by air) that you could imagine..

When a passenger checks-in, be that online, in person or at a kiosk, TIMATIC will "pull" various pieces of data from the reservation (PNR) like ticket type (R/T or O/W), date of return (if any), nationality of the passenger and nationality and type of passport held, expiration date of the passport, route of travel (to include transit/connection stops) and a few other pieces of data..

once this is all obtained by TIMATIC it compares this with what the database shows is the official entry requirements for that passenger, under those specific travel conditions.. If any part is non-compliant, TIMATIC will normally stop the check-in process and alert the agent.. At that point, it usually requires a manual override before check-in can be completed.

The notion that airlines are required to repatriate a non-admissibles to their previous point of embarkation is actually written into both of the international aviation conventions-- the older Warsaw Convention and the newer Montreal Convention.. The issue of fines is something that each individual country sets..

Commonly, the Immigration authority will take into consider issues such as frequency of occurrences with passengers from that specific airline and what steps did the airline take to prevent it from happening in the fist place.. As one might expect if the airline simply failed to check, the whole fine is usually imposed.. on the other hand, if the airline can show that they made reasonable efforts then fines are often waived of reduced.. A common example here is when a passenger presents falsified documents to the carrier that one might not reasonably know to be false.

Some airline actually write into the legal Contract of Carriage that you the passenger bear the costs for not only your repatriation costs but also any fines that the carrier may be assessed by the local authorities.

So, that's why you see some airlines check that take the time and effort to screen more carefully than others.. There is a risk involved and some carriers simply seek to reduce it as close to zero than others.

[HerbalEd]

This is a common practice with most airlines as there is a rule that says if a person flies into a country and ends up not meeting the standards at their point of entry and they have to be kicked out the airline that brought them there must pay to fly them back home. Therefore most airlines refuse to take a chance on having to pay to fly the passenger back home.

While this may be a supposed policy, it is by no means "a common practice." I and several friends have flown into Thailand many times per year for many years without an onward ticket and none of us have ever experienced this practice nor heard of it happening.

Edited February 13, 2011 by HerbalEd

[mjd]

This is a common practice with most airlines as there is a rule that says if a person flies into a country and ends up not meeting the standards at their point of entry and they have to be kicked out the airline that brought them there must pay to fly them back home. Therefore most airlines refuse to take a chance on having to pay to fly the passenger back home.

While this may be a supposed policy, it is by no means "a common practice." I and several friends have flown into Thailand many times per year for many years without an onward ticket and none of us have ever experienced this practice nor heard of it happening.

[mjd]

i flew in with eva late last year to bkk,,,,one a one way ticket and yes they did check ,,it was only after the manager at check in realised i had a 12 month visa ,that i was given a boarding pass.......

[MekhongKurt]

It may not be the airline.

Some years ago, I was in the US returning to Thailand (where I live as an expat) on Eva Airline. I was refused boarding in Los Angeles because I didn't have a visa for Thailand nor an onward or return ticket. I poionted on the 30-day visa-on-arrival, but after considerable discussion, a supervisor got involved. He pulled up what the airline had received from Thai Immigration and invited me to take the mouse and scroll through it, adding that if I could find anything about such a visa, he'd happily approve letting me board.

There wasn't a single syllable about a visa on arrival.

In the event, the cheapest ticket I could buy on the spot was Bangkok-Taipei, so I did that. In Bangkok, no one questioned me, and I got the visa on arrival without ever even showing the ticket on to Taipei. Then I turned the ticket in and got a refund in full.

Again -- that was years ago, different place, different airline. But I have run into it, that's my only point.