rebeccatu

I am wondering if I have any recourse over what happened to me or if this was all entirely my fault.

I was recently deined boarding onto a China Southern flight to Bangkok because my passport expires in 4 months, and Thailand has a six-month validity rule. The decision to deny me came after much confusion on the part of the ticketing staff and manager. They knew of the six-month rule, but apparently it is usually not enforced for US passport holders. The computer at the ticketing counter said I could go, all that was needed a valid passport. The manager checked "the back office" and said she found conflicting information - the 6-month rule is hard and fast. Then the manager checked with other managers of other airlines, and told me they said I could go. She actually issued my boarding pass, and checked in my luggage. THEN she said oh wait, she just got a call from the manager of Thai airlines, who said she should not let me board. So she took the boarding pass back, and retrieved my luggage. This all transpired over about an hour and a half.

I would call this experience an ordeal. I do not feel confident that the airline made the correct/necessary decision given their confusion, and I feel they were acting conservatively at my expense - the airline would get charged a fee if in fact I arrived in Thailand and was deported. My Thailand guidebook (Moon book) did not say anything about a six-mo requirement, though it did talk about visas.

A friend of mine used to work at another airline's ticketing counter (as recently as last year) and said in his experience, they always let US passport holders through to Thailand even if the passport is less than 6 months valid - the customer just has to sign an indemnification.

The ticket was purchased through Orbitz, and is non-refundable. I called Orbitz, who said they could not help and gave me a $50 credit for good will. I now plan to approach the airline - does anyone have advice on what angle, key words, etc to use? I am thinking of appearing in person at the China Southern office. I am pretty sure they will let me at least extend my ticket for 12 mo or so, but can I get any redress/goodwill for my inconvenience, caused by their bungling? Any input would help.

bankops

Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

However, please make sure that you are in possession of a passport valid for
at least 6 months, a round-trip air ticket, and adequate finances equivalent to
at least 10,000 Baht per person or 20,000 Baht per family. Otherwise, you may be inconvenienced upon entry into the country.

sbm12

That's not what is published in TIMATIC.

Assuming a US citizen, departing China headed to Thailand for tourist reasons the passport need only be valid for the intended duration of the stay:
Sounds like the OP was unduly denied boarding.

cordelli

From the US State Department page on visiting Thailand

ENTRY / EXIT REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S. CITIZENS: If you are a U.S. citizen tourist staying for fewer than 30 days, you do not require a visa, but your passport must be valid for at least six months beyond the date of your entry into Thailand. You may be asked to show an onward/return ticket.

Passports should only be considered valid for nine years and six months.

QueenOfCoach

It is up to the passenger to ensure they have all the necessary paperwork before showing up at the airport. The fact that the six-month validity "might not" be enforced does not matter.

You don't have a leg to stand on, sorry.

hfly

1. Actually if there is no such reg listed in Timeatic then there is no reason that they should have rejected the OP.

2. What is written on the US state department site is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS in this case. What is valid what the Thais say and what is posted on Timeatic.

3. Your passport is valid for 10 years especially as the US has treaties in place with most countries that make old school boilerplate 6 month idiocy irrelevent.

4. In such situations all one has to do is indemnify the airline in writing in case there is any possible fine or repatriation expense, and that "covers their butts". I have found myself in one or two of these situations (generally when dealing with morons) and this has always sufficed.

Mark_mnl

As others have pointed out, Timatic is a source considered authoritative by airlines. Timatic says you don't need 6 months on your passport and I would cite this information in your letter to the airline. The online Timatic database is provided by Delta Airlines for free here.

The problem with the quote from MFA provided above is that I saw the same information provided by the Thai Embassy's website and it is obviously out of date. It says that visa-exempt tourists can only spend 90 days in any 6-month period in Thailand but that is an old rule that has been done away with by the country's immigration authorities. As weird as it is to say, the Thai Embassy's own website cannot be treated as an authoritative source. To unravel the truth, one would have to consult a lawyer who can read Thai or an official at Thailand's immigration bureau. Primary sources are the only thing that really matters -- second-hand sources in English don't matter.

The fact that there is so much misleading and conflicting information out there probably works in your favor. You should have been offered the opportunity to sign a waiver. The notion that the airline made its decision based on something they heard from Thai Airways is also unacceptable: airline employees are not immigration lawyers and should not be treated as such.

Update: The Thai Immigration Bureau website also makes no mention of any passport validity rule for visa-exempt tourists. Check it out at www.immigration.go.th.

QueenOfCoach

But it also works against you, as the OP learned. When he/she was checking in, no one knew exactly what to do.

My approach is to assume that a six-month validity policy is in place and enforced, then get my passport renewed appropriately. I do not travel with less than six months of validity, period.

If I get my passport renewed a year or nine months before expiration, then so be it. That sure beats standing at an airline checkin counter with a ticket I cannot use.

rebeccatu

Thanks everyone for your input, it is truly helpful. I really appreciate it!

Mark_mnl

Probably an issue of poor training more than anything else. Making decisions that negatively impact a customer based on hearsay information provided by an employee at another airline is unprofessional.

I've had airline employees (at THAI, as a matter of fact) try to enforce non-existent documentation requirements on me before. Usually a quick, "Can you please show me the exact rule you are referring to?" will resolve the issue. Then if it doesn't, an offer to sign a waiver almost always will. The OP was unfortunate but should fight for a full refund at the least.

celle

I can understand the caution of the Thai Airways people - any mistakes and the airline has to fly you back at the airlines' expense.

We were once allowed on a flight from Bangkok to Ho Chi Minh City with an incorrect visa for Vietnam (nobody's fault - Vietnam changed the type of visa required, after their embassy had issued our visas).

Thai Airways had apparently been notified the previous day about the change of visa and had been told not to allow anyone with the (now invalid) visa to board flights to Vietnam. This information had apparently not trickled down to the check-in counters.

Thai Airways had to fly us back to Bangkok and then from Bangkok back to Ho Chi Minh City when we had obtained the correct visa - all a cost to the airline and not to ourselves.

I have no doubt that some poor check-in person suffered for that mistake!

As a nice touch, the Vietnamese Embassy reimbursed us for our additional costs - overnight accommodation and taxis in Bangkok and the price of a new visa.

Steve M

This usually is the least of the airline's concerns. If you're flying on a round-trip ticket, then the airline simply waives any change fees or other requirements and flies you back to your point of origin at your expense - at that point, the round-trip ticket is considered "used" in both directions, as the airline actually transported the passenger as ticketed in both directions.

The real issue is the potential for fines by the country that refuses entry of a passenger. If the US refuses entry to an inbound passenger and ICE determines that it's something the carrier should have caught prior to boarding the inbound passenger, they can fine the airline up to $10,000 per occurrence. Many other countries have fines of similar size. That is, immigration authorities in most countries want to provide a strong incentive for carriers to catch paperwork problems prior to the passenger being transported.

Even in the US with its strong union environment at many carriers, it's not too difficult for a gate agent to get fired for boarding a passenger with incorrect documentation for the destination if the airline gets stuck with a big fine. This is why gate agents and supervisors at airports seem to take this issue personally - it is personal to them, as their job may be on the line.

Signing a waiver may help in some situations, but in the case of a refusal of entry, the rejecting country is going to collect the fine from the airline, and then the airline has to come after the passenger civilly to collect off of the waiver. They may or may not want to deal with it.

As others have said, Timatic is generally considered an authoritative source by airlines, so it is a bit odd that Timatic would say "Nationals of USA can enter on passports or passport replacing documents valid for the period of intended stay" yet have this questioned by the check-in staff. Especially since both the Thai embassy and the US State Dept's websites mention the 6-month rule, perhaps the change in the rule is recent. I could see how this could cause confusion. Hmmm... I'm not sure what I'd expect an airline to do in the case of a recent rule change that is listed only in Timatic, but not on the actual country's website, the US gov't website, or known by people at the country's flag carrier. Although generally speaking Timatic is considered authoritative, I can see how the actual country's website could be considered more authoritative than Timatic, and unfortunately in this case, if it's out of date, the passenger may suffer.

Steve M

As written above, you absolutely have NO recourse due to you, other than a possible refund of your fare. But as has come out elsewhere in this thread, it appears that there may not actually be a 6-month rule. Your first order of business is to determine what the actual rule is, or more specifically, what it was on the day you were denied boarding. As others have said, it's 100% the passenger's responsibility to comply with all travel document requirements. If the Thai rule is that US passport holders must have 6-month passport validity, then that's your responsibility to comply. The fact that it's not generally enforced, or other passengers are allowed to board in similar situations, is not relevant. The fact that your Moon book doesn't say anything about it means less than zero.

If you can determine in fact that there currently is no 6-month validity rule in Thailand for US passport holders, then I would think this would be treated as an "involuntary denied boarding" situation, and that you'd be entitled to whatever compensation would be due in such a situation. Your situation is a bit unusual, as the IDB rules are intended for situations such as an oversale, where you're still at the airport and the focus is on getting you to your destination as quickly as possible.

That may be true, but you don't have a leg to stand on. You as a passenger have no vested right to be transported to another country when the carrier knows that your papers are not in compliance with that country's immigration laws, even if it's generally known that the law is not enforced and other passengers have been offered the indemnification option.

I would just call them to start with. Many carriers' Contract of Carriage provide for a complete refund in your situation, even if it's a "non-refundable" fare. It should be clearly documented that they refused you transport, so if you want your money back, I'd just call them and see about getting a refund as if this was the normal course of business and not that you're asking for anything special. Only if that fails would I try other options.

I'm almost certain they will accommodate you on a request to just change the dates. As far as additional compensation, I'm not quite sure what is appropriate. It's unlikely that they'll voluntarily do anything that costs them money, even though it would appear to be their fault. Maybe you could talk them into upgrading you to business class in one direction. That costs them nothing other than a little extra catering, and you might get a sympathetic manager that agrees with your situation. If you want to go this route, you should be as nice and polite as possible on the phone and get to a person that has the authority to do something out of the ordinary, which probably isn't the first person that answers: you want the decision-maker person on the other end to sympathize with your situation and want to help. If you are angry and tell them how much their employer sucks, you're unlikely to get anything other than what "the book" says you're entitled to, which probably is nothing in this case.

Mabuk dan gila

Didn't IATA create Timatic in the first place to resolve these issues? CZ is an IATA member. Seems to me that if an IATA member airline is saying Timatic is wrong, they better be able to back it up and get Timatic updated so the issue does not recur.

I'm inclined to believe in this situation, Timatic is probably right. US Gov web sites are irrelevant. Thai immigration law experts generally aren't English speaking web designers, and Thai English speaking web designers generally aren't Thai immigration law experts, so Thai government English web sites are probably best taken with a grain of salt. I suspect CZ screwed up, OP is owned compensation based on CZ unilaterally making up a rule inconsistent with Timatic.

Mark_mnl

Well said. It is a fact of life that getting a straight answer about the laws and regulations of some countries -- especially non-English-speaking countries in the developing world -- is difficult. That's part of why international law firms make so much money.

Timatic is supposed to resolve this ambiguity by providing an authoritative, up-to-date source of information. We aren't talking about Sweden here: it shouldn't surprise anyone that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has out of date or incorrect information posted on its embassy's websites. The actual rules regarding entry into the Kingdom are made by the Immigration Bureau which is a division of the Royal Thai Police, not by the MFA.