Airlines now asking to see tourist visa for visits longer than 3 weeks, WTF?

[lucifer666]

Sorry mate. I know it was only 5 days, but the airline was correct. This has been the norm for as long as i can remember.

[FiestyFarang]

I think this is an airline issue rather than Thai Immigration. Thais are generally very kind and helpful to senior people. However it is the case that for a Visa Waiver (30 day on arrival) there needs to be a flight ticket out of Thailand. I imagine the airline pays to take the passenger back to their original location is the case Auckland is a long expensive haul. Qantas were not wrong just following rules to the letter. I am surprised though that they wanted to see an outbound ticket as my mother has been to Thailand several times and another airline never asked. This is a Qantas issue and you should take it up with them. I avoid Qantas anyway (except Jetstar) as their staff are over zealous. I was once accused of smoking in the toilets on a flight and being arrested upon landing by federal agents in Australia as I had a cigarette packet in my shirt pocket. The male cabin crew was very aggressive so I said smell my breath. Needless to say case closed the guy was just looking for trouble.. However it put me off flying them and I often fly every month. Their prices are way too expensive for the intimating service. It is good to print articles like this as perhaps they will realise they are in the real world rather than just following procedure. It might be the case however that the person your mother dealt with did not have authority to make a decision. I was surprised that according to Virgin Australia there was no one in the whole of Cairns ariport who could make a decision to waive the charge of a few kilos of luggage weight even though it was my third flight with them in a week and had a few days earlier paid around A$500 for a flight from Brisbane to Cairns and was flying back to the UK as a family member was dying and only had days to live. I just moved some kilos into my hand luggage. I did complain later by email and this is what I was told, she did not have the authority to waive any excess luggage. She did not explain I could move some weight into my hand luggage but said I had to leave some things there. Qantas is a dinosaur in a global market. Why was your mother travelling from NZ on a British Passport that might have also confused them? Last time I checked extensions were 7 days on the waiver program for a fee of 1900Baht.

Edited February 24, 2014 by FiestyFarang

[hawker9000]

Thanks, she had an onward ticket but it was with another airline so they couldn't change it. Seems petty, and in 10 years travelling here I've never heard of an airline enforcing this. I suppose a different person might have successfuly argued. Unless there is suddenly some strict enforcement by Thai immigration, seems an inexperienced check in clerk was being unreasonable. For goodnessake, if she lands and they don't want to give her a 30 day, there's always the Qatar airline counter to rebook the ticket or put her on the next flight to London.

Sorry, though Qantas might be right in asserting this, it's a case of being inflexible, and few other airlines do this. It's consistent with my poor impression of their customer services. Pity Emirates have a codeshare with them, I would never willingly have booked that airline, never will in the future either.

VT - you're not getting it. Your original post says your mom was planning to stay for 35days. 35days is more than 30days. The rule is (as repeatedly stated in this thread and many others and many other places besides) that the airline can be fined and is responsible for a passenger's return travel at their (the airline's) expense if the passenger lacks a visa for Thailand and cannot show onward ticketing withIN the visa-exempt 30d window but is allowed to board anyway. Your mom was non-compliant with this rule, and you/she had no backup plan to get compliant if the issue came up, which it did. Period. Full stop. End of story. You seem to want to play the well-they-did-it-for-Johnny game; it's not a matter of "customer service". Neither the airline nor the counter-person you're dealing with makes these rules, but they do have to live with them. Yes, sometimes folks get by. That's life. If you think Qantas was being unreasonably rigid for merely going by the book, declining to turn a blind eye, and administering a well-known rule, fine, but you're just rolling the dice betting another airline won't do the exact same thing in similar circumstances. If it were my mom, I'd try to avoid letting her take such risks with her overseas travel plans.

[PhillyBoy]

On a recent return to LOS I flew on JAL from Narita. I did not have a return ticket. The clerk called a supervisor and they asked me how long I was staying. I told them I am going to live there, but had no Visa. They told me the rules about an onward ticket. The supervisor then pulled me to the side and said if they ask at immigration tell them you are staying 2 or 3 weeks but did not get a return yet. They never asked upon entry.

[Sayonarax]

3 weeks = 21 days
5 weeks = 35days

A one month visa is 30days. The airlines not being petty.. get your affairs in order.

[jacksam]

I just don't understand the rules. I live in bkk. At present just using visa exempt 30 days. I fly back to Melbourne for 10 days shortly. Return ticket bkk to melb and back. So when I returned the airline should regard my ticket from melb into bkk as a one way ticket. Not highjacking the OP. SOME of the answers confuse me with what I have been doing

[Mario2008]

When you fly back to Thailand the airline might want to see a visa or a ticket out of Thailand within 30 days of arrival.

[thailandbeachisland]

You should care a bit more when your old Mom is about to travel !

[Monkeyrobot]

This is an old rule and an excuse because they where overbooked , a lot of the smaller carries like Tiger, Air Asia ect you book yourself in online if you have carry on only , you even print your own boarding pass or down load it to your smart phone, then you just go direct though customs & turn up at the gate. The girl that was checking her in maybe was having a bad hair day , also remember it is New Zealand they are 10 year behind the rest of the world. Oh sorry was that a baaaad thing to say I mutin do that next time.

[Guitar God]

I flew KLM from AMS-BKK once and had a return date 50 days out and no visa. The agent said I couldn't stay more than 30 days, I told her I was also going to KL and Hong Kong during the trip. She said "okay".

[Larry001]

I travel a lot. This is typical of Qantas wanting to flex their muscle

[iamariva1957]

This is an ongoing situation and has been the case for quite sometime now. Does it always happen that the airline denies you being able to board without a Thai Visa if you are staying over 30 days? No it does not. But if it does you can ask the airline to give you the form to fill out that removes any fault on their part for allowing you to travel into Thailand for longer than 30 days (for G7 Countries). As long as you have a outbound flight booked and paid for, airlines do not have the right to deny your travel as they are not representatives for the destination country's immigration service. Oh, they will argue the fact, but they all have the same form that removes any responsibility from them regarding your travel. Sign it and be done, get on your flight and just worry about the food on board.

I have traveled on BA, United, China Air, China Eastern, Asiana, Air Asia (from HK), and some others and always had a round trip ticket that showed that I was going to be in Thailand on a tourist exempt for months (sometimes 7 months) without ever being told that I was not going to be allowed to get on. I have been doing this for the past 5 years and though I always wind up getting a Tourist Visa within my 30-day exemption, I have always told the airline that I want to sign the waiver of responsibility that they all can issue.

[Bababooey]

So if you are staying more than 60 days then a 60 day tourist visa does not meet the requirements?

If you have a 1 year extension of stay and a re-entry permit then one needs a ticket out before the 1 year extension of stay expires?

Btw, I hear if traveling to the Philippines they are very strict regarding a ticket out.

[Linno]

I fly to Thailand continuously. Generally using a return tkt to BKK from BKK. I am always departing before the 30 days for work. Australian pp. Several years ago I was asked for my return tkt in BNE at check in. I showed my pp which indicated the constant travel and means of support (credit cards) and explained I was waiting for a client to specify dates before making a booking out of Thailand. I have never been asked again- by any airline. Lufthanza, Air Asia, Qantas, Thai, Qatar, Emirates, Air India, British.

Sent from my GT-I9082 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[ubonjoe]

So if you are staying more than 60 days then a 60 day tourist visa does not meet the requirements?

If you have a 1 year extension of stay and a re-entry permit then one needs a ticket out before the 1 year extension of stay expires?

Btw, I hear if traveling to the Philippines they are very strict regarding a ticket out.

If you have a visa of any type or a re-entry permit you do not need a ticket out of the country.

Only for a visa exempt entry do you need a ticket out within 30 days.

[BossBar]

It also happened to me i was flying from Kuwait to BKK on Qatar using a one way ticket as i did not know what date i would be leaving Thailand. They would not let be board until i bought a ticket to exit Thailand before 30 days.

This has also happened to a friend of mine who was flying to BKK from Manchester.

PS on the arrival departure card which you fill in prior to BKK immigration arrival, you have to state what date and the mean's of your departure.

PPS I do not know why the BARSTAAAAAARDS did not just change the date for her return.

[NanLaew]

By the way---would it have ben TOOOOOO much for Qantas to have just changed dear old Mum's return ticket to a 30 day or less---I more than sure there would have been a seat available ---But I suppose it's a case of "Computer Say's No" ---i.e can't be bothered--or-- " the rules say " etc. etc.

Since when has it become any airlines obligation to assist a passenger with immigration compliance for their destination beyond confirming they have an itinerary that fits the visa requirements of the destination country?

The OP's mum should have booked a ticket to fit the 'permission to stay' criteria and then changed the ticket once she was in LOS.

Anyway, the point to be taken from this and another post is that there is at least one zealous Qantas check-in agent working the wee small hours at Auckland airport!

[BossBar]

By the way---would it have ben TOOOOOO much for Qantas to have just changed dear old Mum's return ticket to a 30 day or less---I more than sure there would have been a seat available ---But I suppose it's a case of "Computer Say's No" ---i.e can't be bothered--or-- " the rules say " etc. etc.

Since when has it become any airlines obligation to assist a passenger with immigration compliance for their destination beyond confirming they have an itinerary that fits the visa requirements of the destination country?

The OP's mum should have booked a ticket to fit the 'permission to stay' criteria and then changed the ticket once she was in LOS.

Anyway, the point to be taken from this and another post is that there is at least one zealous Qantas check-in agent working the wee small hours at Auckland airport!

Yes your correct she should have bought the correct ticket, but not everyone knows as MUCH AS YOU. Also if Qantas want people to use their airline again should they not teach their representatives/employees a little bit on customer care. ONLY MY OPINION.

[olddoc]

Most airlines within their terms and conditions include a sentence similar to the following

"For all travel, roundtrip or one-way, it is the ticket holder’s responsibility to ensure that all required visas have been obtained and presented at check-in."

[flyingdoc]

Certainly food for thought!

[Upnotover]

PS on the arrival departure card which you fill in prior to BKK immigration arrival, you have to state what date and the mean's of your departure.

You mean on the back of the arrival section? You don't have to enter any date on that, simply your next destination. I haven't completed that sections for many years and I don't know if they ever look at this information in any case, I always thought is was just for TAT's statistics.

[hourlay]

Most airlines within their terms and conditions include a sentence similar to the following

"For all travel, roundtrip or one-way, it is the ticket holder’s responsibility to ensure that all required visas have been obtained and presented at check-in."

Considering that it's easy to extend a stay in Thailand by requesting it at immigration, Grand Ma had all required visas.

In case of refusal by immigration ( 1 chance about 10 000 ). Grand Ma was still able to take a bus to visit Cambodia and still being in order from a visa point of view.

The issue is that employee at check in doesn't know Thailand ( and the flexibility to find a legal solution from inside the country ) and thus makes trouble.

+

Even for a trip of 2 weeks with a return fly ticket, they requested me a visa last time. I had to tell ten times to the check in officer , I fuc.. don't need a visa for a 2 weeks trip.

[Bucko]

Most airlines within their terms and conditions include a sentence similar to the following

"For all travel, roundtrip or one-way, it is the ticket holder’s responsibility to ensure that all required visas have been obtained and presented at check-in."

Just for interest-- some Qantas rules

10.1 Refusal of Carriage

Even if you have a Ticket and a confirmed reservation, we may refuse to carry you and your Baggage if any of the following circumstances have occurred or we reasonably believe will occur:

• if carrying you or your Baggage may put the safety of the aircraft or the safety or health of any person in the aircraft in danger or at risk
• if you have used threatening, abusive or insulting words towards our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft or otherwise behaved in a threatening manner
• if carrying you or your Baggage may materially affect the comfort of any person in the aircraft
• if carrying you will break government laws, regulations, orders or an immigration direction from a country to which you are travelling or are to depart from
• because you have refused to allow a security check to be carried out on you or your Baggage
• because you do not appear to have all necessary documents
• if you fail to comply with any applicable law, rule, regulation or order or these Conditions of Carriage
• if you fail to complete the check-in process by the Check-In Deadline or fail to arrive at the boarding gate on time
• because you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security
• because you have not complied with our medical requirements
• because you require special assistance and you have not made prior arrangements with us for this
• if you are drunk or under the influence of alcohol or drugs
• if you are, or we reasonably believe you are, in unlawful possession of drugs
• if your mental or physical state is a danger or risk to you, the aircraft or any person in it
• if you have committed a criminal offence during the check-in or boarding processes or on board the aircraft
• if you have deliberately interfered with a member of our ground staff or the crew of the aircraft carrying out their duties
• if you have put the safety of either the aircraft or any person in it in danger
• if you have made a threat
• because you have committed misconduct on a previous flight and we have reason to believe that such conduct may be repeated
• because you cannot prove you are the person specified on the Ticket on which you wish to travel
• because you are trying to use a Flight Coupon out of sequence without our agreement
• if you destroy your travel documents during the flight
• if you have refused to allow us to photocopy your travel documents
• if you have refused to give your travel documents to a member of Our ground staff or the crew of the aircraft when we have asked you to do so
• if we reasonably believe you will ask the relevant government authorities for permission to enter a country through which you are Ticketed as a transit Passenger
• because your Ticket:

  - is not paid for

  - has been reported lost or stolen

  - has been transferred

  - has been acquired unlawfully

  - has been acquired from someone other than us or an Authorised Agent

  - contains an alteration which has not been made by us or an Authorised Agent

  - is spoiled, torn or damaged or has otherwise been tampered with, or

  - is counterfeit or otherwise invalid.

In any of the situations in this 10.1, we may remove you from a flight, even after you have boarded, without any liability on our part, and cancel any subsequent flights on the Ticket.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Bucko

[asiamint]

3 weeks = 21 days

5 weeks = 35days

A one month visa is 30days. The airlines not being petty.. get your affairs in order.

Wrong, your the one who should get himself in order

You are allowed 30 days, plus another 7 extension, let's just keep it simple

The old dear should have been allowed on her plane

So long as she has money for onward travel, which she did

[hawker9000]

PS on the arrival departure card which you fill in prior to BKK immigration arrival, you have to state what date and the mean's of your departure.

You mean on the back of the arrival section? You don't have to enter any date on that, simply your next destination. I haven't completed that sections for many years and I don't know if they ever look at this information in any case, I always thought is was just for TAT's statistics.

EXACTLY! They don't care if you fill this out on arrival or not. Most of the time I don't bother with it until I'm getting ready to leave. 'Wish posters wouldn't just presume stuff and post it here as fact, but it happens often. Bossbar's post a perfect example.

AND quite wrong the bit about the 7-day "extension". That's time to leave the kingdom if a request for an extension on a 30d visa exempt entry is refused (which it will always be since no such provision exists in the law). It's definitely NOT part of your 30d visa exempt wndow, and must be requested AND paid for (1900THB if I remember correctly) AT an immigration office, and CAN in fact be refused (although that probably hardly ever happens, it IS entirely within the immigration officer's discretion). More posting based on half-truth.

Edited February 24, 2014 by hawker9000

[7by7]

From the Royal Thai Embassy, London.

Foreigners entering Thailand under the Tourist Visa Exemption category must provide proof of adequate finances for the duration of stay in Thailand at the port of entry (i.e., traveller’s cheque or cash equivalent to 10,000 Baht per person and 20,000 Baht per family).

Foreigners entering Thailand by any means under the Tourist Visa Exemption category are required at the port of entry to have proof of onward travel (confirmed air, train, bus or boat tickets) to leave Thailand within 30 days of the arrival date (otherwise a tourist visa must be obtained).

Neither of which are applied in practice on entering Thailand.

I, too, have never been asked to show either by Thai immigration; but one day I might be.

The airline don't want to pay the large fine and bear the cost of returning me home, in my case the UK, so they are going to ensure I meet the return/onward ticket requirement; under the international regulations/agreements applicable to all countries and all airlines, it is their responsibility to do so before they allow me to board.

It's not their responsibility to ensure I meet the financial requirement, so if I were refused entry on that point they would be in the clear.

Those are the rules, and no amount of whingeing is going to change them.

Get a visa or a return/onward ticket valid within 30 days or risk being denied boarding.

[wileycoyote]

I thought it was 30 not 21 days ,no Visa requirement for most Nationalities

[HerbalEd]

The rules are that she needs a visa if she intends to stay for longer than 30 days, so the airline was right to refuse. That has been the rule for years.

Some airlines do not check if one has a flight out within 30 days of arrival or a visa, but they are required to do so and can be fined for taking a passenger to Thailand without the proper documentations, like your mother.

She could have bought a one way ticket out of Thailand with a cheap airline and would have been all right.

The OP address the onward ticket in his post.

[Mario2008]

The rules are that she needs a visa if she intends to stay for longer than 30 days, so the airline was right to refuse. That has been the rule for years.

Some airlines do not check if one has a flight out within 30 days of arrival or a visa, but they are required to do so and can be fined for taking a passenger to Thailand without the proper documentations, like your mother.

She could have bought a one way ticket out of Thailand with a cheap airline and would have been all right.

The OP address the onward ticket in his post.

The OP states that his mother intended to stay 35 days. That is longer than 30 days, so a visa was required. (or a ticket out within 30 days of arrival).

She did not meet the requirements.

[hawker9000]

The rules are that she needs a visa if she intends to stay for longer than 30 days, so the airline was right to refuse. That has been the rule for years.

Some airlines do not check if one has a flight out within 30 days of arrival or a visa, but they are required to do so and can be fined for taking a passenger to Thailand without the proper documentations, like your mother.

She could have bought a one way ticket out of Thailand with a cheap airline and would have been all right.

The OP address the onward ticket in his post.

Yes, he did, and his mom did not have one (within the required 30d window). Really, let's stop making this harder than it is. If you can't be bothered to understand a country's entry requirements, maybe you shouldn't be traveling there... Strange how the vast majority never seem to have these problems. If OP thinks avoiding Qantas will solve his problems, then more power to him. Start a website. airlines_that_don't_check_visas.com