Just A Quickie...

[thomo]

Hi lads,

Just a quick question, Have any of ye heard of people being stopped from entering or refused the standard 30 day tourist visa when showing up on a one way ticket in BKK. I presume then forced to buy a ticket back home within that period, or is it relatively risk free (even tho' it's the law). Having been to Los 3 times I'm presuming it's relativly risk free, but don't know. Any experiences???

Cheers.

Edited June 27, 2006 by thomo

[the scouser]

Hi Thomo,

You might get a better response in the visas for Thailand forum.

Topic moved.

Scouse.

[Maestro]

Have any of ye heard of people being stopped from entering or refused the standard 30 day tourist visa when showing up on a one way ticket in BKK.

In the ten months I have been reading this forum I have seen no report of this having happened to anybody.

---------------

Maestro

[Maestro]

Having been to Los 3 times I'm presuming it's relativly risk free

”Relatively risk free”, yes, regarding the particular risk you mentioned, and on your past three trips you also seem to have had no problem with the other, more considerable risk.

the airline is the one most likely to deny you boarding

many airlines will not allow you to fly without a ticket out of Thailand within 30 days if you do not have a visa in your passport.

the airline is not likely to allow you to board the aircraft. You require an onward ticket to use the 30 day entry without visa and the airlines normally check this on long flights.

etc.

You know the risks, and the decision is up to you.

---------------

Maestro

[Crossy]

I'm with Maestro on this. You are unlikely to have a problem at the immigration desk at Don Muang.

BUT

You are highly likely to have a problem at the airport check-in desk at your point of origin.

I have been asked to show my visa (find it in the passport) on departure from London Heathrow, Rome, Kuala Lumpur, HongKong and Manila.

All were with different airlines, all stated that I could not board the flight if I didn't have a visa (always did of course).

[Axel]

...or is it relatively risk free (even tho' it's the law). ....

Cheers.

Actually, I never found a law that requires you to have a ticket to enter Thailand.

The basic requirement is to have sufficient funds (Foreigners entering Thailand under Tourist Visa Exemption must possess means of living expenses at the amount of 10,000 Baht per person and 20,000 Baht per family accordingly.)

Immigrationofficers have the right to ask for additional documents, which can be a ticket, but it is not a law, AFAIK.

Airlines, however, relectunt to ask to show the cash, require the return- or onward ticket to cover themselves, in case entry is denied and they have to fly the passenger out.

[lopburi3]

Royal Thai Consulate General Los Angeles:

LIST OF COUNTRLIST OF COUNTRIES ALLOWED A “30-DAY STAY IN THAILAND WITHOUT A VISA” FOR TOURISM (pleasure) ONLY

Passport holders from the countries below can visit Thailand without a visa for the maximum of 30 days stay with proof of confirmed onward ticket showing 30 days or less in Thailand.

Requirements :

- A valid passport (6-month validity with empty visa pages)

- A proof of confirmed air tickets showing 30 days or less in Thailand.

[astral]

Airlines, however, relectunt to ask to show the cash, require the return- or onward ticket to cover themselves, in case entry is denied and they have to fly the passenger out.

If you are refused entry the airline not only has to fly you out,

they get fined as well.

This is why they are such sticklers.

[Axel]

I know, some consulates make their own rules, but, as I said, I never found a law that requires you to have a ticket to enter Thailand.

Here the MFA:

TOURIST VISA EXEMPTION

- According to the Interior Ministerial Announcements dated 1 October B.E. 2545 (2002), 20 December B.E. 2545 (2002) ,18 October B.E. 2547 (2004) and 6 May B.E. 2548 (2005) , passport holders from 40 countries and Hong Kong SAR do not require a visa when entering Thailand for tourism purposes and will be permitted to stay in the Kingdom for 30 days.

- Foreigners entering Thailand under Tourist Visa Exemption must possess means of living expenses at the amount of 10,000 Baht per person and 20,000 Baht per family accordingly.

[Axel]

Airlines, however, relectunt to ask to show the cash, require the return- or onward ticket to cover themselves, in case entry is denied and they have to fly the passenger out.

If you are refused entry the airline not only has to fly you out,

they get fined as well.

This is why they are such sticklers.

Yes, Baht 20,000 is the rate at the moment.

[lopburi3]

Section 56 of the immigration act makes mention of ticket for those here without visa as below and suspect that is the basis. It is also listed with the International Air Transport Association as required (which the airlines check on there computers):

Section 56 : In the case where there is an exemption from a visa for the alien, under section 12 (1), and the alien has shown the competent official a ticket or any travel document of the owner of the conveyance or the person in charge of the conveyance or evidence of any other person, in accordance with the condition as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations, for the purpose of deporting from the Kingdom of such alien, the competent official shall have power to order the owner of the conveyance , the person in charge of the conveyance , or the person issuing a ticket, document or evidence , as the case may be, not to cancel, return of alter the important vital statement on the said ticket, document or evidence, with or without any conditions.

The order under Para.1 can be done by attaching to or by stamping in the said ticket, document or evidence, when the competent official has ordered, if here is cancellation , return or alternation of the important vital statement in the said ticket, document or evidence , finding it difference from the order given by the competent official, the competent official shall have power to order the owner of the conveyance , the person in charge of the conveyance, or the person issuing a ticket , document or evidence , as the case may be , to conform with the former condition as indicated on the ticket, document or evidence, for the purpose of deportation.

[doctormann]

Thomo

As has been said, it's the airline that you will have problems with and they probably won't let you board. They are very careful about this.

On a closely related theme, I was recently flying back to BKK from Newcastle (UK) on the return half of a ticket. The airline (KLM) didn't want to let me on the plane as I didn't have a ticket out of Thailand again. I had to explain that I didn't need one as my re-entry permit allowed me back into the country. Then the check-in girl spotted that my visa had expired. Then had to explain that this was irrelevant as I had the re-entry permit!

I thought that check-in staff were a bit more clued up than this but it does indicate that they will check that you meet the requirements to fly - in your case a return or onward ticket.

DM

[thomo]

Thanks all,

I rang up the Thai embassy in my own country (Ireland) about getting a 1 year multiple Entry non-imm. so I'm going to type up a letter from an old un-used family company stating I'm going over to view the prospect of setting up business relations in a number of industries(a tiny little bit true), and apply for it.

Cheers, I'll post the result.

Edited June 28, 2006 by thomo

[WilliamIV]

Thomo

As has been said, it's the airline that you will have problems with and they probably won't let you board. They are very careful about this.

On a closely related theme, I was recently flying back to BKK from Newcastle (UK) on the return half of a ticket. The airline (KLM) didn't want to let me on the plane as I didn't have a ticket out of Thailand again. I had to explain that I didn't need one as my re-entry permit allowed me back into the country. Then the check-in girl spotted that my visa had expired. Then had to explain that this was irrelevant as I had the re-entry permit!

I thought that check-in staff were a bit more clued up than this but it does indicate that they will check that you meet the requirements to fly - in your case a return or onward ticket.

DM

I thought re-entry Permits are issued for the same Validity / Expiry date of the Original Visa or its extension.

Can you enlighten me?

Bill

[Maestro]

I thought re-entry Permits are issued for the same Validity / Expiry date of the Original Visa or its extension.

You’re wrong on the first part, right on the second.

What you call the expiry date of the visa is the date by which the visa must be utilized to enter Thailand. Arrive after that date and you won’t be stamped in on the basis of that visa but just get a 30-day stamp on arrival.

---------------

Maestro

[lopburi3]

A re entry permit is valid for the period of the "permitted to stay" stamp that you have when it is issued. So if you are permitted to stay until 12 Nov 2006 the re entry permit will have that same date.

[atlastaname]

Apart from the fact that they like you to have a return ticket and that were there to be a problem it could only assist you , why wouldn't anyone want to have a return ticket anyway ? i mean in my experience the price of a return is proportionately cheaper than a single , and you can always refund it once you are in the country and get that part of your money back. So why risk a potential (although unlikely ) problem when you don't have to.? Its like people who overstay ...why do it when its SOOOO easy to avoid ? Beats me , maybe some people just like to make life more dfifficult than it already is .???

[thomo]

...maybe some people don't have to return home until they want to, and don't know when that will be. They can also travel whatever roads show up in front of them, and f__k only knows where they'll be leading to.

Holy crap, Apologies. I sound like a <deleted> backpacker.

... and I could mention 'the last time I tried to get a ticket refunded...' but I'd be lying - not bad thinking.

Bit of luck and I'll have bluffed a 1 year non-imm and it'll all be the one.

[Chang_paarp]

Apart from the fact that they like you to have a return ticket and that were there to be a problem it could only assist you , why wouldn't anyone want to have a return ticket anyway ? i mean in my experience the price of a return is proportionately cheaper than a single , and you can always refund it once you are in the country and get that part of your money back. So why risk a potential (although unlikely ) problem when you don't have to.? Its like people who overstay ...why do it when its SOOOO easy to avoid ? Beats me , maybe some people just like to make life more dfifficult than it already is .???

Simple.

Perth BKK rtn Au$1100 - $1500

BKK Perth rtn Au $600 - $800

I know which I prefer to pay. Given the choice which would you elect?

[thomo]

This mightn't be news to any of ye, but I was amazed at how easy it was to get a 1 year non-imm B visa from my embassy. Sent off the application with a dodgy homemade business letter and a passport that includes a 1 year visa to Australia with entry and exit stamps that show a difference of 3 1/2 years. 4 days later and I've a 1 year visa that doesn't need to be activated before July 2007.

V. Easy, Saves a lot of hassle.

[Crossy]

4 days later and I've a 1 year visa that doesn't need to be activated before July 2007.

Just a note for those who may not understand. Thai visas are not 'activated'. The 1 year validity of this visa starts on the day the visa is ISSUED by the consulate NOT the day you first enter Thailand.

So, in the example given above, arriving on the day before the 'must use by' date will result in a single stay of 90 days.

Don't apply for your visa too early

[lopburi3]

This mightn't be news to any of ye, but I was amazed at how easy it was to get a 1 year non-imm B visa from my embassy. Sent off the application with a dodgy homemade business letter and a passport that includes a 1 year visa to Australia with entry and exit stamps that show a difference of 3 1/2 years. 4 days later and I've a 1 year visa that doesn't need to be activated before July 2007.

V. Easy, Saves a lot of hassle.

They issue a multi entry visa valid for unlimited entries any time during the one year period. You receive 90 days max stay for any entry. If you arrive in July 07 you will have to leave 90 days later.

[Lazykhao]

Section 56 of the immigration act makes mention of ticket for those here without visa as below and suspect that is the basis. It is also listed with the International Air Transport Association as required (which the airlines check on there computers):

Section 56 : In the case where there is an exemption from a visa for the alien, under section 12 (1), and the alien ........ the purpose of deportation.

I admit to not understanding Section 56.

It refers to section 12 (1) ot the Act which states that visa exemption will be under the learn (sic) and conditions as provided in the ministerial regulations.

So if Axel cares to look up the regulations I am sure he will be satisfied that an onward ticket is a legal requirement and that LA consulate is not making it up.

Edited July 6, 2006 by Lazykhao

[thomo]

You are of course right,

Thanks Crossy.

[Noel]

Apart from the fact that they like you to have a return ticket and that were there to be a problem it could only assist you , why wouldn't anyone want to have a return ticket anyway ? i mean in my experience the price of a return is proportionately cheaper than a single , and you can always refund it once you are in the country and get that part of your money back. So why risk a potential (although unlikely ) problem when you don't have to.? Its like people who overstay ...why do it when its SOOOO easy to avoid ? Beats me , maybe some people just like to make life more dfifficult than it already is .???

It is not always as cut and dried as that as different circumstances can dictate.

I have only been back to the UK twice in the last thirteen years. When returning from the first trip back, I bought a one year (the maximum time I could get) open return ticket but I did not use the return leg. When I went back for the second time I obviously had to buy a return ticket in Thailand, meaning that when I flew back into Thailand I only had a one way ticket.

I suppose technically I should have been refused passage by the airline, but thankfully was not. Perhaps commonsense prevailed...?