Ugh, that sucks. Keep calling. Try someone else. Keep escalating (provided you have that little itinerary flight in the middle). Point them to the consulate page that says what you are doing is allowed.

However, the other Thai consulate page says you need proof of departure within 30 days, the middle flight may not count:

http://www.thai-la.net/visa/visa-list30.htm

At this point, it might be easier just to get an official Thai visa.

Alas, the onward ticket is not the issue. Right now Delta's stance is that is *doesn't matter* if I have another ticket booked out. They claimed "We are not allowed to take into account other airline tickets." Any Delta itinerary beyond 30 days, they say, and the Thai government *requires* them to deny me boarding. This is soo frustrating because it clearly contradicts Thai law and the experience of most people here!

The only guarantee I have is if I book ALL flights on the same itinerary, i.e. book a Delta flight out of Thailand within 30 days. All of which means I have to book a totally new flight, at considerably more cost. (I booked original ticket way ahead of time.)

And yes, the LA Thai consulate (but not NY or the DC embassy) apparently have language requiring a visa for longer than 30 day itineraries. But they don't say that it's the law, but rather a matter of airline policy:

I plan to visit other countries around Thailand and I plan to be in Thailand for less than 30 days. However, my airline ticket shows more than 30 days in Thailand. Do I need to apply for a visa?

Yes. If your airline ticket shows more than 30 days in Thailand, you must apply for the visa before entering Thailand even if you plan to obtain an airline or rail ticket to a third country upon arrival in Thailand. If your airline ticket shows more than 30 days in Thailand and you leave without a visa to Thailand, there is a very good chance that the airline could refuse to allow you to board until you obtain a Thai visa.

Note that this language does not say anything about me having a ticket on *another* airline to leave the country. That would seem to be enough, right? Also, I basically have a 6-week window to take this trip, and a Thai visa by mail will eat up a lot of that trip. (By which point I'll probably have less than 30 days left to travel and the visa issue will be moot.)

Ugh, so why does one consulate say one thing but not others, especially if I'm complying with Thai law. All so dizzying and frustrating!

More people to contact...
 

Delta's Executive Contact Info

Might help to escalate your issue...

I posed the same question many threads ago and the OP has ignored it. There was some comment saying that Thai immigration has been "lax" in the past. I replied that counting on immigration to be lax, if they ever were, is too big a risk. Additionally, even if that were true, why would DL count on immigration to be "lax" now. I doubt we will here why the OP had not purchased that other ticket in advance of his arrival at Gainesville. My guess is if he had, we would not be posting here now.

This is total nonsense.

HOWEVER, for the sake of expediency, just book and pay for a fully refundable ticket on DL.

This strikes me as a violation of U.S. anti-trust laws. A company cannot restrict or limit your choices as to who you do business with in the future. Such limitations are considered a restraint of trade.

+1

Delta is just plain wrong here. Bottom line. Full stop. It is very worrying that they could get it so completely wrong. Some countries require onward/ return tickets, some do not. Kuwait, for example, very explicitly states that one must have an onward or return ticket. If I show up and want DL to take me to Kuwait without proof of an onward/ return ticket, they should deny me boarding.

I think there is some confusion on this board as to
1) What Thailand requires -and-
2) What DL's responsibility is

First, Thailand clearly requires an American without a visa to leave within 30 days. They absolutely do not require such an individual to have a return/onward ticket on the same carrier and on the same PNR out of Thailand within 30 days of arrival. Yes, reading between the lines, they may require proof of some sort of return/ onward ticket, but not on the same carrier. OP may have been wrong to show up initially with only a reservation, and not a confirmed ticket out of Thailand, but DL is wrong to insist that the OP's ticket/ PNR with DL show travel out of Thialand within 30 days. It is not up to DL to decide whether or not the OP intends on leaving within 30 days. It is up to Thai immigration.

Second, if DL were to transport OP to Thailand under the facts as presented by OP throughout his/her posts, they would not be liable for removing OP or paying a fine as OP was in compliance with the documentation requirements when he/she left the country. As I said before, if the Thai immigration authority denies entry because they feel that OP intends on staying more than 30 days, it will be up to the OP to pay for travel out of Thailand, and DL won't be fined, as OP was in compliance with the documentation requirements upon depature from the US. End of story. Period.

This whole thing is worrying to someone like me, because I frequently travel on one-way/ open jaws/ return tickets originating in a foreign country. So long as I am in compliance with the stated visa/documentation policies, DL should not refuse me because Delta feels that I will break the immigration laws once I've arrived in the foreign country. Again, that decision is for the immigration officer to make.

Disclaimer, what follows is not a "NW is better than DL" rant, but a simple fact:
Delta has undergone massive international expansion in the last few years, and was not one of the larger players in Asia until the recent expansion there. They really need to have better practices/ procedures in place for compliance checks. They are serving a lot of countries now, each with very different visa requirements. A lot of international airlines have "hotlines" for their front-line agents to call to get issues like this one resolved quickly. It will not be good for DL's international business if they begin to get a reputation for making up their own rules vis-a-vis immigration requirements, therefore adding a layer of uncertainty for passengers with complex travel plans. I don't want to arrive at an outstation thinking that I may not be allowed to fly because an agent may not understand my destination country's immigration policies correctly, even though I am in compliance with foreign immigration laws.

DL's position is not unusual and it just so happens that the issue here is some people are trying to be a kangaroo lawyer.

Some countries do have specific policies for airlines which carry people into their country over an above their published policies. Even the US has specific requirements for specific airlines.

Unfortunately the OP is SOL on this one and that is usually a problem when trying to rely on consulate visa advice.

Can we finally stop this? I just visited the website of the Thai Consul General in Los Angeles . It CLEARLY states that proof of confirmed airline tickets OUT of Thailand witin 30 days is required for a Visa. The OP did not have that. Would someone like to go to that website and tell me I am incorrect. Sorry I don't have the link. I am on my Iphone and have not mastered copy and paste . Just Google, Thai Consul General, Los Angeles. You will get the government website. Click on Visa, then 30 day Visa, and it will confirm what I have posted. No onward, return ticket, within 30 days means no Visa. The OP had neither. Can't blame DL for that, even if Thai immigration had been "lax" in the past.

http://www.thai-la.net/visa/visa-list30.htm

Maybe this link will help. The OP should have printed out this webpage, and shown up with his ticket out of Thailand within 30 days already purchased. It was messed up the way he tried to do it. And if I read another post correctly, Thailand counts the first and last days as part of the 30 days. He needed to show an outbound ticket within 30 days (or
or 28) to get on the DL flight. If he had one and was still denied boarding, that would be one thing. He never got that far because he did not have one. And to our knowledge, he still does not. While it is true that the website does not require a ticket out of Thailand on the originating carrier, it is clear that a purchased outbound ticket on some carrier within 30 days is required. It is a requirement for a Visa. If you don't meet the requirement, DL, does not have to Board you. What am I missing?

It doesn't say that it has to be on the same airline.

The OP was "wrong" initially but he did offer to buy a confirmed ticket out of Thailand -- on a different airline. Delta wrongly indicated that was not acceptable.

I just got off the phone with another member at corporate customer care. Not very nice person, same result. Now going to try higher ups.

I would love to even *get* to the point where I'm arguing with Delta about the onward ticket. But I'm not. Right now they are denying me the right to board any flight to Thailand for more than 30 days w/o a visa. They claim they can only rely on IATA information, and IATA says "Visa required, except for a touristic stay of max. 30 days." That's what comes up on their computer screens, that's what they stick to.

Yes, the Thai consulate in LA (but notably not NY or embassy in DC) says something about requiring an onward flight. But it doesn't state that it has to be with the same airline. So if I could just argue with Delta about the onward flight issue, then I would be set. But I'm not even getting that far.

Ugh. About to draft a letter.

Delta's wrong. But buying the visa seems the easiest fix. as delta for price protection as this is an unclear area.

+1

DL shouldn't absorb the cost of changing the ticket, but should allow the ticket to be changed, and allow OP to travel now.