If you get refused entry at an Airport what happens?

[BuffaloRescue]

Just wondering

 

If officials at airport decide you have been in-out too many times on whatever visa. Any you fly into a Thai airport from overseas, what happens?

 

I doubt Thailand is going to pay to put you on the next flight out of the country, as would happen if you say flew to australia and they decided to turn you away.

 

So what happens? Im guessing they gonna put a big red mark in your passport and issue you with a 7 day visa, enough time to buy your own ticket and leave.?

[lumply]

If you have a return ticket you will be put on the next flight back to your original destination. If no return then expect to be held until your embassy (unlikely) or family/friends organise a ticket out of there. It's your responsibility, and so it should be.

[Fatdog]

That very thing has been bothering me also.

 

I am flying back to the UK in 10 days from KL, so the return ticket is back to KL.

 

The route back is Glasgow - London - Bangkok - KL

 

I have booked another flight (Return) from KL to Bangkok. 

 

I have booked the flight back to Bangkok on business, so if I do get refused then I may get more help from the airline, also if I do get refused I will be sent back to KL.

 

FD.

[Bung]

I thought that it is up to the airlines to make sure you have a valid visa to fly into a country, if not they have to take you back to where you came from.

I wonder how airlines are going to interpret these new rules?

[slipperylobster]

I thought that it is up to the airlines to make sure you have a valid visa to fly into a country, if not they have to take you back to where you came from.

I wonder how airlines are going to interpret these new rules?

 

Valid visas do not guarantee entry.  Immigration may turn you back at their own whims. How would the airline that flew you in be culpable?

[MrWorldwide]

I thought that it is up to the airlines to make sure you have a valid visa to fly into a country, if not they have to take you back to where you came from.

I wonder how airlines are going to interpret these new rules?

 

AFAIK, they arent checking your past history of back-to-back exemptions / tourist visas - that's Immigration's job. What doesnt seem clear is whether the airlines are demanding to see proof of a return flight booking - they do in Australia but not in regional airports across Asia IME. 

 

Personally, I'd be less than impressed if AirAsia staff started grilling me about whether or not I was a genuine tourist, but it will be interesting to see if the airlines add some form of advisory or FAQ to their websites for 'Frequent Travellers to Thailand' - the Smart Traveller website provided for Australians travelling to Thailand contains no such advice.

 

The British Foreign Office does have something I didnt see on the Smart Traveller website:

 

Proof of onward travel

Immigration officials in Thailand may ask you for proof of onward travel (eg a return or onward air ticket). You should make all reservations before leaving for Thailand. Some airlines have refused to board passengers without evidence of onward travel.

 

AirAsia currently provides this gem for those looking to fly to Thailand from their KL hub. 

 

Smiling is all you’ll do as this beautiful land of elephants and smiles will please you in every way.

[tpazzi]

 

I thought that it is up to the airlines to make sure you have a valid visa to fly into a country, if not they have to take you back to where you came from.

I wonder how airlines are going to interpret these new rules?

 

Valid visas do not guarantee entry.  Immigration may turn you back at their own whims. How would the airline that flew you in be culpable?

 

 

Yes, that's pretty much how it works everywhere around the world.   The transporting airline has the responsibility to take you back.  That's why airlines often ask you to show an onward ticket when you check in.   They may or may not come after you for any related expenses.  

 

It is also probably why the date of implementation at the airports was after the date at ground borders, giving the airlines time to prepare.  


And if you do get denied, chances are they won't turn you loose in the Transit area or anywhere else.  Other countries keep the passenger in a detention area until the outbound flight.     Can't imagine why Thailand would be different. 

[MrWorldwide]

 

I thought that it is up to the airlines to make sure you have a valid visa to fly into a country, if not they have to take you back to where you came from.

I wonder how airlines are going to interpret these new rules?

 

Valid visas do not guarantee entry.  Immigration may turn you back at their own whims. How would the airline that flew you in be culpable?

 

 

Because they are - and they are supposed to ensure that you have onward travel booked unless you have the relevant visa. This has been covered in great detail in this forum over the last few weeks. If you do a Google search you'll also see that the airlines are fined for each passenger that gets bounced because their didnt meet the entry requirements - in this instance, I believe that will be a very sore point for international airlines who can rightly argue that they shouldnt be required to submit a passenger's passport to their level of scrutiny prior to allowing them to board an aircraft for one of the most popular holiday destinations in the world. 

[Sortapundit]

Officially, I believe (though I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong), you need a return or onward ticket OR a valid visa to satisfy airline requirements to be allowed to board a flight to Thailand. If an airline allows a passenger to board without satisfying these requirements they can face fines from the country of arrival, and be stuck with the expense of removing the passenger from the country. I'm not au fait with the law, but I'd expect in the early days of the crackdown the airlines would foot the bill for the removal of a refused passenger who doesn't meet the requirements. 

 

For years the airlines have been fairly lax about these requirements with regards to Thailand, at least for passengers arriving from countries that are eligible for a visa exemption, as there was little risk of them being refused entry. If the worst case scenario occurs, and people start to be refused entry while holding a valid visa (or refused a visa exemption), you can probably expect the airlines to start screening passengers more closely, and maybe refusing to board those who haven't booked a return or forward flight, as they won't want to be left holding the bill when an IO decides Mr Smith has already enjoyed Thailand quite enough for this year. Again, this is a worst case scenario, and it's conjecture in any case. 

 

What I can tell you from experience is that airlines often follow whatever rules they please, regardless of the law, and there's really no way to know what will happen until you're in that situation. I was once refused entry to Mongolia while holding a valid tourist visa (I'd been blacklisted without being informed, and the issuing embassy hadn't checked the blacklist before issuing me the visa). I flew in from Beijing with Air China on a one way ticket, and I was returned to Beijing at my own expense. The flight crew literally walked me to the Air China desk at Beijing airport, told me to empty my pockets and took all my cash as payment for the flight. I was then put on a Lufthansa flight back to Frankfurt, which was paid for by Lufthansa. There's no rhyme or reason, so the best thing to do is have a contingency plan.

[OMGImInPattaya]

 

I thought that it is up to the airlines to make sure you have a valid visa to fly into a country, if not they have to take you back to where you came from.

I wonder how airlines are going to interpret these new rules?

 
Valid visas do not guarantee entry.  Immigration may turn you back at their own whims. How would the airline that flew you in be culpable?
 

 
Yes, that's pretty much how it works everywhere around the world.   The transporting airline has the responsibility to take you back.  That's why airlines often ask you to show an onward ticket when you check in.   They may or may not come after you for any related expenses.  
 
It is also probably why the date of implementation at the airports was after the date at ground borders, giving the airlines time to prepare.  


And if you do get denied, chances are they won't turn you loose in the Transit area or anywhere else.  Other countries keep the passenger in a detention area until the outbound flight.     Can't imagine why Thailand would be different. 

"often ask you to show an onward ticket," where do you get thus information? I've traveled all around Asia and back and forth to the States maybe 50 times over 15 years and never been asked to show an onward ticket.

[MrWorldwide]

Dont know abt the States, but its uniform across all the International airlines for flights out of Australia now. Admittedly, doesnt seem to happen in KL or Singapore, but that could change in the wake of the crackdown - given that flights are so cheap from most of the regional hubs, for me it's no biggie. 

[slipperylobster]

 

 

I thought that it is up to the airlines to make sure you have a valid visa to fly into a country, if not they have to take you back to where you came from.

I wonder how airlines are going to interpret these new rules?

 

Valid visas do not guarantee entry.  Immigration may turn you back at their own whims. How would the airline that flew you in be culpable?

 

 

Because they are - and they are supposed to ensure that you have onward travel booked unless you have the relevant visa. This has been covered in great detail in this forum over the last few weeks. If you do a Google search you'll also see that the airlines are fined for each passenger that gets bounced because their didnt meet the entry requirements - in this instance, I believe that will be a very sore point for international airlines who can rightly argue that they shouldnt be required to submit a passenger's passport to their level of scrutiny prior to allowing them to board an aircraft for one of the most popular holiday destinations in the world. 

 

 

That is correct...but not my point.

 

The airlines check for onward travel and visa sure....and should be culpable in that regard.

 

They do not and probably will never check to see if you have back to back thai visas/border runs.  So in this regard, they let you board...and then Thai immigration refuses you entry upon arrival...up to them..    So ...in this light....why would the airlines that flew you in (after you met all their requirements) be culpable to fly you out because Thai Immigration does not like your visa/border run history.

 

This is the sticky point.

 

[tpazzi]

 

"often ask you to show an onward ticket," where do you get thus information? I've traveled all around Asia and back and forth to the States maybe 50 times over 15 years and never been asked to show an onward ticket.

 

 

 

From my own personal experience.  As was mentioned above, they don't typically ask on flights into Thailand because of the exemption.  But I'm often challenged on flights into Taiwan, China, Vietnam, etc.    

 

I should add I often use one-way tickets from many different airlines as I'm vagabonding around the world (currently on my third lap :) ).  Perhaps, you are flying round trip on the same airline?  In that case they obviously can see your return ticket in their system without needing to ask.         

[IBoldnewguy]

After reading the comments on this post as well as others I think the reason that there is not a definitive answer is because travel.... like shoes.... does not come in a one size fits all answer.... since we all have a different purpose for travel plus various experiences encountered over time.

 

However, each of us knows (or should) our own motive for visiting Thailand; plus we should also know our own travel history and at least have a hint where that history places us in the crack down profile and chances of having future problems with immigration. A lot of queries concern plans already made and if those plans might encounter problems.... don't travel without a backup plan.... I wouldn't, regardless of circumstances.  

 

Essentially, it is irrelevant if one agrees or not with how it is done from here on out. The resilient find a way....

 

 

 

[Luang]

I have some very recent exp. of this which I will share: I recently (this month) flew from London Heathrow into BKK with Eva Air. I had no return ticket as I was flying onto somewhere else later. I was doind visa on arrival so had no visa in my passport either. Eva Air required me to sign a disclaimer should I be refused entry. Therfore any problems / costs would I assume be borne by myself, not the airline.

[ArNaSu]

Well I always assumed that provided you have a credit card you could go to one of the transit counters and buy an onwards ticket there such as a oneway to Singapore or Phom Phen or something. Although I have never had to do it I think I'm right. As an offshore worker I only ever enter Thailand on one way tickets and have on occasion been asked by the airline to show a credit card before getting on the flight.

[jacko45k]

If you have a return ticket you will be put on the next flight back to your original destination. If no return then expect to be held until your embassy (unlikely) or family/friends organise a ticket out of there. It's your responsibility, and so it should be.

 

I thought the carrier would be fined and obliged to return you from whence you came?

You can see the airlines getting very strict at check-in if that happens a few times.

I wish them luck figuring the situation.
 

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

 

 

 

I thought that it is up to the airlines to make sure you have a valid visa to fly into a country, if not they have to take you back to where you came from.

I wonder how airlines are going to interpret these new rules?

 

Valid visas do not guarantee entry.  Immigration may turn you back at their own whims. How would the airline that flew you in be culpable?

 

 

Because they are - and they are supposed to ensure that you have onward travel booked unless you have the relevant visa. This has been covered in great detail in this forum over the last few weeks. If you do a Google search you'll also see that the airlines are fined for each passenger that gets bounced because their didnt meet the entry requirements - in this instance, I believe that will be a very sore point for international airlines who can rightly argue that they shouldnt be required to submit a passenger's passport to their level of scrutiny prior to allowing them to board an aircraft for one of the most popular holiday destinations in the world. 

 

 

That is correct...but not my point.

 

The airlines check for onward travel and visa sure....and should be culpable in that regard.

 

They do not and probably will never check to see if you have back to back thai visas/border runs.  So in this regard, they let you board...and then Thai immigration refuses you entry upon arrival...up to them..    So ...in this light....why would the airlines that flew you in (after you met all their requirements) be culpable to fly you out because Thai Immigration does not like your visa/border run history.

 

This is the sticky point.

 

 

 

There's another sub point which needs to be said in regard to the situation where already have a visa but on arrival your refused entry. Yes it does happen.

 

Years back an acquaintance at a western embassy in Bkk explained it like this - at the time of actual arrival it's possible there is a just implemented alert, further information has come to light about a specific passenger, etc., and all countries therefore reserve the right to override a visa issued before departure.

[JonboyBKK]

Officially, I believe (though I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong), you need a return or onward ticket OR a valid visa to satisfy airline requirements to be allowed to board a flight to Thailand. If an airline allows a passenger to board without satisfying these requirements they can face fines from the country of arrival, and be stuck with the expense of removing the passenger from the country. I'm not au fait with the law, but I'd expect in the early days of the crackdown the airlines would foot the bill for the removal of a refused passenger who doesn't meet the requirements. 
 
For years the airlines have been fairly lax about these requirements with regards to Thailand, at least for passengers arriving from countries that are eligible for a visa exemption, as there was little risk of them being refused entry. If the worst case scenario occurs, and people start to be refused entry while holding a valid visa (or refused a visa exemption), you can probably expect the airlines to start screening passengers more closely, and maybe refusing to board those who haven't booked a return or forward flight, as they won't want to be left holding the bill when an IO decides Mr Smith has already enjoyed Thailand quite enough for this year. Again, this is a worst case scenario, and it's conjecture in any case. 
 
What I can tell you from experience is that airlines often follow whatever rules they please, regardless of the law, and there's really no way to know what will happen until you're in that situation. I was once refused entry to Mongolia while holding a valid tourist visa (I'd been blacklisted without being informed, and the issuing embassy hadn't checked the blacklist before issuing me the visa). I flew in from Beijing with Air China on a one way ticket, and I was returned to Beijing at my own expense. The flight crew literally walked me to the Air China desk at Beijing airport, told me to empty my pockets and took all my cash as payment for the flight. I was then put on a Lufthansa flight back to Frankfurt, which was paid for by Lufthansa. There's no rhyme or reason, so the best thing to do is have a contingency plan.

[BDG]

 

 

 

I thought that it is up to the airlines to make sure you have a valid visa to fly into a country, if not they have to take you back to where you came from.

I wonder how airlines are going to interpret these new rules?

 
Valid visas do not guarantee entry.  Immigration may turn you back at their own whims. How would the airline that flew you in be culpable?
 

 
Yes, that's pretty much how it works everywhere around the world.   The transporting airline has the responsibility to take you back.  That's why airlines often ask you to show an onward ticket when you check in.   They may or may not come after you for any related expenses.  
 
It is also probably why the date of implementation at the airports was after the date at ground borders, giving the airlines time to prepare.  


And if you do get denied, chances are they won't turn you loose in the Transit area or anywhere else.  Other countries keep the passenger in a detention area until the outbound flight.     Can't imagine why Thailand would be different. 

"often ask you to show an onward ticket," where do you get thus information? I've traveled all around Asia and back and forth to the States maybe 50 times over 15 years and never been asked to show an onward ticket.

 

 

[BDG]

I've been married to a Thai man and have two Thai children. All three have double nationalities. I am the only one with just one Belgian passport. I have been refused to board a plane twice as i could not prove an onward flight for me. Once in Auckland and once in London. Both times i had to book and pay an outward ticket or i would have missed a very costly flight - so: it happens all the time. You were just lucky if it never happened to you

[oldsailor35]

 

I thought that it is up to the airlines to make sure you have a valid visa to fly into a country, if not they have to take you back to where you came from.

I wonder how airlines are going to interpret these new rules?

 

Valid visas do not guarantee entry.  Immigration may turn you back at their own whims. How would the airline that flew you in be culpable?

 

So if one is refused entry, is there any appeal.   Maybe officer A  refuses but officer X disagrees and allows entry.

[oldsailor35]

 

I thought that it is up to the airlines to make sure you have a valid visa to fly into a country, if not they have to take you back to where you came from.

I wonder how airlines are going to interpret these new rules?

 

AFAIK, they arent checking your past history of back-to-back exemptions / tourist visas - that's Immigration's job. What doesnt seem clear is whether the airlines are demanding to see proof of a return flight booking - they do in Australia but not in regional airports across Asia IME. 

 

Personally, I'd be less than impressed if AirAsia staff started grilling me about whether or not I was a genuine tourist, but it will be interesting to see if the airlines add some form of advisory or FAQ to their websites for 'Frequent Travellers to Thailand' - the Smart Traveller website provided for Australians travelling to Thailand contains no such advice.

 

The British Foreign Office does have something I didnt see on the Smart Traveller website:

 

Proof of onward travel

Immigration officials in Thailand may ask you for proof of onward travel (eg a return or onward air ticket). You should make all reservations before leaving for Thailand. Some airlines have refused to board passengers without evidence of onward travel.

 

AirAsia currently provides this gem for those looking to fly to Thailand from their KL hub. 

 

Smiling is all you’ll do as this beautiful land of elephants and smiles will please you in every way.

 

This could become a little difficult if one has a Non imm"O"  which gives 15 months. Most airlines will not take return booking over 12 months or extend flight change over 12 months. I have had this problem, so just took a one way tkt.  Holding a non imm "O"  proves that i have the finances and requirements.

 

Edited July 19, 2014 by oldsailor35

[Emster23]

Let's say you have a valid tourist visa issued in another country and plan to exit Thailand via train to Malaysia. For whatever reason Thai immigration won't let you in and airline has to ship you out again. Airline checked for visa, did as required per rules, but ball was dropped by immigration. Do the airlines have any recourse against Thai government, or do they just have to shut up and eat it?

 And would if airlines flights are full, so can't get on next flight out. My first trip to Thailand in 82 they said I hadn't confirmed (although I did at head Thai office in BKK!). Would have to wait 2 weeks for next available seat. Luckily I got on that one... With the flight of folks out of Thailand (literally) could no seat available be a problem?

[mikebike]

Let's say you have a valid tourist visa issued in another country and plan to exit Thailand via train to Malaysia. For whatever reason Thai immigration won't let you in and airline has to ship you out again. Airline checked for visa, did as required per rules, but ball was dropped by immigration. Do the airlines have any recourse against Thai government, or do they just have to shut up and eat it?

"but ball was dropped by immigration"

 

What the heck? Immigration can do whatever they want with you... Just because an airline has done a brief review of your documents doesn't mean you've been vetted by immigration.

 

Most airline will probably follow Eva Air's example and make you sign a waiver that if you are not allowed entry you are on your own.

[sandrew33]

Dont know abt the States, but its uniform across all the International airlines for flights out of Australia now. Admittedly, doesnt seem to happen in KL or Singapore, but that could change in the wake of the crackdown - given that flights are so cheap from most of the regional hubs, for me it's no biggie. 

Hardly uniform. I fly every month and usually buy tickets at the Thai end. So from Oz, I'm usually on the return leg (so no Oz inbound ticket).

In 7.5 years of living in KL & BKK, I've been asked maybe 5 times and I've always just explained that no one in Asia asks. Only once was it an issue when a bolshi bloke on replacement duty at Malaysia Airlines check in pushed it. Was resolved in 5 mins with a supervisor.

So it's far from uniform. Edited July 19, 2014 by sandrew33

[JDGRUEN]

 

 

 

I thought that it is up to the airlines to make sure you have a valid visa to fly into a country, if not they have to take you back to where you came from.

I wonder how airlines are going to interpret these new rules?

 

Valid visas do not guarantee entry.  Immigration may turn you back at their own whims. How would the airline that flew you in be culpable?

 

 

Because they are - and they are supposed to ensure that you have onward travel booked unless you have the relevant visa. This has been covered in great detail in this forum over the last few weeks. If you do a Google search you'll also see that the airlines are fined for each passenger that gets bounced because their didnt meet the entry requirements - in this instance, I believe that will be a very sore point for international airlines who can rightly argue that they shouldnt be required to submit a passenger's passport to their level of scrutiny prior to allowing them to board an aircraft for one of the most popular holiday destinations in the world. 

 

 

That is correct...but not my point.

 

The airlines check for onward travel and visa sure....and should be culpable in that regard.

 

They do not and probably will never check to see if you have back to back thai visas/border runs.  So in this regard, they let you board...and then Thai immigration refuses you entry upon arrival...up to them..    So ...in this light....why would the airlines that flew you in (after you met all their requirements) be culpable to fly you out because Thai Immigration does not like your visa/border run history.

 

This is the sticky point.

 

 

 

I think it is a very critical point.  After this whole situation (that you so aptly describe) becomes plain and apparent to Airline Executives... something will happen and it will happen very loudly.  Airline company staff can easily check to see if one has a seemingly valid passport with visa but are not trained nor responsible for a detailed passport history examination that could possibly result in a denial of entry.   I doubt that anyone in the Thai Immigration authority has given it any thought.  At some point International Airlines will refuse to fly passengers back based on these type of denials of entry.  They are not going to undertake a financial loss based on arbitrary subjective decisions.  And what would the Thai Government do about it?  Tell major International airlines companies they cannot fly into Thailand anymore... Yeah - Sure ... and the reverberation around the Airline Industry would become a loud roar.  I suspect the solution will be people being forced to buy some sort of ticket out of Thailand while being held in detention.  Confusion will reign.

[NoshowJones]

 

I thought that it is up to the airlines to make sure you have a valid visa to fly into a country, if not they have to take you back to where you came from.

I wonder how airlines are going to interpret these new rules?

 

Valid visas do not guarantee entry.  Immigration may turn you back at their own whims. How would the airline that flew you in be culpable?

 

How is this for a scenario? You come off the plane, show your passport, you are 100% legal, lets just say that you have a re-entry permit, the officer decides at his own whim " Somebody has upset me, I am in a bad mood, so I will refuse this person entry". Is that it? Does the unfortunate person just go away in tears and try and arrange a flight back to where he came from.

 

I can't imagine something like this happening, maybe I'm wrong.

[stevenl]

 

Dont know abt the States, but its uniform across all the International airlines for flights out of Australia now. Admittedly, doesnt seem to happen in KL or Singapore, but that could change in the wake of the crackdown - given that flights are so cheap from most of the regional hubs, for me it's no biggie. 

Hardly uniform. I fly every month and usually buy tickets at the Thai end. So from Oz, I'm usually on the return leg (so no Oz inbound ticket).

In 7.5 years of living in KL & BKK, I've been asked maybe 5 times and I've always just explained that no one in Asia asks. Only once was it an issue when a bolshi bloke on replacement duty at Malaysia Airlines check in pushed it. Was resolved in 5 mins with a supervisor.

So it's far from uniform.

 

So somebody asking for the correct and required paperwork is a bolshi bloke?

[new2here]

There's two parts in play.. One is a fine, the other is a fee.

When a foreign carrier get permission to fly to/from another county, they are required to show and maintain that countries minimum insurance levels for things like crashes, body and property injury and possible corporate dissolution.

They also have to post or buy a bond which insures that all fees, taxes and other monies due are paid.

They lastly have to have and appoint a physical person or local entity as their agent for things like acceptance of legal processes and such.

If a person is deemed inadmissable, a few things happen.

The immigration or similar agency will formally notify the transporting (into that country) of the action. The notice will also state things like:

1) the deadline by which the immigration or similar agency, or national law, requires the inadmissable to depart the country,
(That's usually on the carries next flight out, but it can be sooner)

2) any FINES imposed,

3) any FEES imposed

The FINE is usually something that can be mitigated down (or possibly up depending on the laws text) depending on the case specifics.

For example, if a carrier transports someone with a fake visa - and it's caught by arrival immigration, there would most likely be a mitigation down of the fine, so long the carrier can show that there was some level of inspection carried out by the airline at departure.

In contrast, if the inadmission is due to "no onward ticket" then unless the carrier can show otherwise, it's less likely the fine would be lowered.

The FEE is usually fixed and that covers the countries costs to identify, process and handle the physical and administrative process of a removal.

Passenger tickets usually include a customs and immigration fee, but that is usually only for common entries and not extraordinary events like this.

A carrier doesn't want too many inadmissable says there can be penalties for exceeding certain levels.

In most countries, the law does allow the carrier to contest the fine and the fee - but usually that's only done in unusual cases.. The fine is the part that's most commonly contested - and that's handled locally by the process of mitigation.

Is immigration allowed to do "whatever"? In most cases no... But the law in most countries does give them a fair bit of flexibility .. That said, each county is different in terms of adherence to said law.



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand Edited July 19, 2014 by new2here