pinniped

Do you ever experience difficulties from an immigration official if you have *no* onward travel plans? I'm rarely asked anything about onward travel plans, but always assume I could be asked to show proof I plan to leave the country if I'm arriving with no visa and a declaration of tourism as my purpose for being there.

WorldLux

And the point is...?

You do realise that enough it is the other way around. OSL-FRA-NYC return for $295 in May. The same flights as oneways? $3410 ($2056 if you book W instead) for the outbound and $2800 for the inbound. Total of $6210. Or slightly more 21x the return. Even if you get the cheapest (currently published) LH OW fares on that route, you'd be looking at a total of $4600. You could fly Norwegian (which does offer significantly cheaper OW) but on those dates even their OW cost about the same as the LH return.

Sure oneway domestic fares can be cheaper, but many airlines still operate on the idea that a oneway is more expensive than 50% of the return.

pinniped

Not only is this true, but even in cases where the two one-ways are the same or cheaper, it still *might* make more sense for you to book the R/T. It all depends on the airline's change rules, refare rules, your own likelihood of changing the ticket, and the chance that you might want to fly exactly half of the itinerary (especially the 2nd half).

There are absolutely cases where holding the single R/T ticket is more advantageous, even when the original ticket price of two one-ways is exactly the same as the R/T.

There are also cases where one direction is cheap and the other direction is pricey, and doing an award one direction ends up as the optimal choice.

ft101

More likely (IME) to get into problems at check in. If the airline thinks you may be refused entry to a country they're not going to take you there, as they're liable for returning you and possibly being fined.

WorldLux

Absolutely. I just wanted to illustrate why the OP's generalisation is incorrect insofar that there are plenty of itineraries where R/T will be the cheaper option (even if you drop the inbound).

In the context of international travel, an R/T will also be safer bet than having only a single oneway (red flag to any immigration officer).

puchalskir

I round trip can be better if your flight is cancelled and you decide to cancel your trip.
Happened to me a couple of weeks ago.

dulciusexasperis

The 'proof of onward travel' question is one that many people who wing it or travel for extended periods of time come up against pinniped. Interestingly, it is not Immigration who most often insist on this, it is the airlines. They will tell you it is a requirement by Immigration of a country but often it is not. The airline are subject to fines and having to return you to your point of departure if you are refused entry to a country by Immigration. To mitigate this, they will sometimes insist on 'proof of onward travel' or that you buy a return ticket. It's to cover the airline's butt though and not necessarily because the Immigration laws of a country require it.

For example, Canada does not require a return ticket or proof of onward travel. Like many countries, what the applicable Immigration regulation actually says is that, 'you must satisfy the Immigration Officer as to your intentions.' Even a return ticket is not 'proof of intentions'. Canadian Immigration regularly denies entry to people who have returns tickets but cannot for example show 'proof of sufficient funds' for the duration of their stated intended stay. Nothing actually can 'prove' you plan to leave the country pinniped if you think about it. Someone intending to overstay or work illegally in the country can easily buy a return ticket or 'onward travel' ticket and then throw it away.

So the 'onward/return travel' question comes up all the time on other travel related forums. Sometimes as a general question and sometimes specific to a country. The answers on how to deal with it can vary a great deal. Where a country specifically does require it, it can be as simple as buying a bus, train, plane, ferry ticket to cross a border and then throwing the ticket away if you decide instead to head in another direction. Many people do that and look for the cheapest throwaway ticket that will satisfy the requirement.

What is important to know is that the airline's rules and Immigration rules differ. Never take the airline's word for which country actually require it. Next, is to accept that if an airline insists on it even though it is not an Immigration requirement your choices are to comply with the airline's rules or pick another airline. I have changed airlines in the past because of this.

Next is to know that even when immigration requires it, it is not always rigidly enforced. The rule that is rigidly enforced in my experience is 'satisfy Immigration as to your intentions'. The word 'proof' is really misused in regards to this whole subject. Nothing really constitutes 'proof' as I said and common sense should tell us that it's really about 'satisfying Immigration as to our intentions'. Often you can enter a country that supposedly 'require proof of onward/return travel' and not be asked to show a return/onward ticket. That is the case most of the time really. Immigration looks at you, asks you the usual 2 or 3 questions and pass you through. They do not make a habit of asking to see your 'proof of onward/return travel'. That usually only happens after something has raised the Immigration Officer's suspicions.

The one thing I have learned is to dress presentably and never hesitate over my answers to Immigration. If asked, 'how long do you intend to stay?', I give a specific answer even if I actually don't know how long I intend to stay. It isn't to deceive, it is because I know that they are used to 99.9% of travellers having a specific answer to give. If you say, 'well I'm not sure, I'm gonna play it by ear', it can raise their suspicions and then you are in to a whole other ball game. I just answer with something like, 'two weeks'. Full stop. I don't add, 'but I may change that and leave earlier or later'. Why would I want to add that and raise any possible questions in their mind? Nor is it necessarily untrue when I say it! I usually have some idea of how long I think I am likely to stay. I don't need to go into adding that I might change my mind about that.

darthbimmer

Sometimes two one-ways are the same price (or nearly the same) as a roundtrip. In those cases I, too, prefer the greater flexibility of booking two one-way flights. BTW, that's always the case with Southwest Airlines but only true about half the time with other airlines IME. In cases where a roundtrip is cheaper the difference can be significant-- sometimes $200, sometimes $1000+! A smart shopper prices it out both ways and considers whether the risks are worth the costs.

dulciusexasperis

There is no hard and fast rule you can use when your travel plans are not carved in rock as most people's plans are. You check all possibilities.

There have been times when I found it was cheaper to book an entire package holiday (flight &hotel) and throw away the return and the hotel stay, vs. buying a one way ticket to the destination. This can happen with some frequency if your destination is to a busy holiday choice with lots of competition. For example, UK to Spain or Greece, USA & Canada to a Caribbean island or Mexico.

This was common practice when I was living on a Greek island for those who came to work for the season from the UK. At the end of the season, the last seasonal flights of each airline flying the route would be petty empty. People would buy a one way back 'home' from them quite cheaply. Then at the beginning of the next season, they would buy a package and throw the return and hotel away as they were going to be staying for perhaps 6 months.

There are all kinds of travellers who do not travel in the 'normal' way. The problem is when people who do tend to fly in the 'normal' way as most here do, try to discuss a subject of which they have limited experience of only the 'normal' kind.