PLEASE HELP!! Thailand & a one way ticket

Well, as I already made clear, I'm pretty sure she's legit and telling us the truth.

And I think proof of onward travel has long been a non-issue for the Thais but they just never officially informed the airlines or IATA or whatever, so (some) carriers continue to rigidly enforce a rule that no longer exists. But that still means someone without a visa or proof of onward travel could be in danger of being denied boarding. And saying "well an anonymous poster on Thorn Tree said it's now a non-issue" still isn't going to get you on that flight.

There have been a number of first-hand reports here and on other forums of people being denied boarding over the years, and I know I personally had to convince a check-in agent that February had 28 days (some time ago, admittedly).

It's also possible it's one of those things the Thais are keeping deliberately ambiguous, so they can selectively enforce it whenever they see fit.

I asked a contact who works in the airline industry in Thailand for his take on our discussion about Proof of Onward Travel (let's call it POOT ). Here's what he wrote to me:

"If you take a read on the Ministerial Notice, which is the formal and final "word" on the matter, it does say onward ticket.. specifically it says confirmed "onward conveyance". The part that's hard here is that ALL Thai notices, laws and such are ONLY written in Thai.. and only those that appear in the Royal Gazette are formally accepted as "law" Any English translation is just an approximation and not valid for determination. And thru this translation 'air' is added as the translation leads to this.

"The agent you are talking to in LP is most likely using the high level overview. Each airline sets their own risk level as to how close or not do they wish to go in interpreting the rules. In the end, the Immigration Department will make the final call as to admissibility or not. Some airlines based in part on their past experience are more willing to "take a chance" that these minor -- but still technically required -- elements of entry won't be asked or enforced, thus a lower chance of encountering an "inadmissible" and thus a carrier fine for transporting him/her. So, some airlines might take a less-than technical interpretation of the ruling -- as what is in TIMATIC (the IATA database containing cross border passenger documentation requirements - my note) -- others might take a more strict interpretation. I think this is why Checkingirl says she only looks for 6 months (which is the norm for almost all countries) and not the POOT specifically.

"If you look in TIMATIC, which is what most but not all, airlines use to determine documentation requirements, it does state that POOT needs to be there and the form as well. Again, TIMATIC is using the English translation of what is known from the Ministerial Reg."

Everyone can see what is written in TIMATIC, that is not the point of this discussion, the point I tried to make is the PRACTICE of implementing this rule is obviously different at some airports. If you read TIMATIC carefully you will find that the wording for POOT for many nationalities runs along the lines of it is recommended+ that you have POOT as Thai immigration +may+ ask for it. For some nationalities the wording is much stronger with words such as +must+ being used. +Air+ is not always mentioned. According to the border control colleagues at my airport it simply never happens, no-one is ever returned to point of departure for this reason. They say as long as you can give a genuine and plausible explanation as to where and how you are going to exit Thailand you will be allowed to go on your way and this is in the +very unlikely event you are asked in the first place. Problems will arise however should you have a previous record with Thai authorities for overstaying visa etc etc.

As long as the airlines I work with consider the risk of fines as zero, POOT is simply not an issue.
When it comes to money, the airlines would be the first to react. Ofcourse I am not encouraging you to ignore the rules, just trying to give you a different perspective of what goes on behind the scenes. Perhaps this is all leading up to an official relaxation of the rules eventually.

Somebody earlier on this thread named Air Berlin as an airline making this check. I spoke to Air Berlin colleagues today and they stopped the POOT check in Nov 2009 at my airport.

#51 and #52 have between them made this issue clearer than it has ever been explained before, and I for one am very grateful for that input, thank you both.

There are two bottom lines, as I see it. (1) Some pax are still going to have probs with POOT depending on where they check in and with which airline they are travelling (strangely enough, TG in Brisbane) and (2) this issue makes it clear that, as many of us already discovered long ago, rarely does the left hand in Thailand have any bloody clue what the right hand is doing. They are desperate for tourists, yet by default and incompetence they put obstacles in the way. The TIT factor is alive and well.

^^ I second that bill and for a long time I have been telling the backpackers in TT to have that proof because they do not have the ability to explain why they are without. Seems to me a reasonable explanation of how the rules are implemented is finally here.
perhaps this should be a sticky - not that anyone will read it or search for it of course so best make a note of where to find the answer so we can post it when it next gets asked - that'll be next week then!!

I would love to know which airlines you are all having trouble with ??? I work for a major European airline at a major European hub and we are the handling agent for Thai Airways International. It is NOT company policy to check onward / return tickets and this is NEVER done.

Reply -

Dear Friendlycheckingirl,

Thank you for your letter providing information on your workplace (major European airline) and for notifying us that your work at a major European hub. It is good to know it is not company policy to check onward/return tickets with your airline at your airport.

Unfortunately, not every flying passenger books their tickets through/with your company (major European airline), and not every flying passenger goes through the major European hub where you work.

In view of this, may I humbly suggest in the interests of those passengers who do not pass through your airline or hub that informing them, "the onward travel rule is obviously not a requirement at the present time" (see #19) is not in their best interests as not all airlines and airports have the same rule as yours and this may cause untold conflict if they are denied boarding which in turn may lead to emotional complications later in life wherewith they may be forced to seek medical intervention on the psychiatrist's couch, which in turn could cause financial hardship causing further stress.

Yours sincerely,

Other flying passenger.

^^LOL

C_C, just checked again with Thai Airways here in Auckland and they have reiterated what I said back at #33. And I do wonder what European hub is so easy to leave from then maybe we can all transit there.

^^how you gonna get from Bishop Auckland to EU hub without exiting Aus? An' it's a bloody long way round

An' I dont live in bloody Aus so have no intention of exiting there.