@Jack ***************

check bag 15 kg, that's not the story of the opening post. There it was carry on and 5 kg over 25. I'm not on drugs, I read your post. You don't seem to remember what you wrote there, and you reply offensively to people who do. Are you on drugs yourself?

A carry on bag with a 30 kg limit? I wouldn't want to be on your flight mate, the overhead compartments will all break.

Oh and yes of course, if your bag weighs more than some limit (doesn't matter which) you have a pay a penalty. Duh.

Most countries do not require you to apply from a specific country if you're just getting a tourist visa. But some do. It's hard to advise if we don't know what country your plan to visit.

@Jason *********

except for schoolgoing kids. And others.

@Bent ************

can you buy it online though?

@Kevin ******

although I don't agree that calling may yield wrong answers so regularly that it isn't worth the effort, it does appear that you've gotten a wrong answer here. With non-O, proof of onward travel is not required.

@Bruce *******

most that you'll find give out real tickets and then cancel them for you. It's something you could do yourself as well, this is basically just an outsourcing exercise. The tickets are real tickets that you 'rent'.

There are also sites providing fake tickets. That's by the way also something you could do yourself.

Both should normally work, also the fake ticket. There's not much to fear from immigrations, and an airline will not start an in-depth investigation if you show them something that looks real. It would be different in for instance Indonesia, where immigrations checks regularly for proof of onward travel. You may not want to show an official something that's fake. Then a rented ticket would be better.

@Peter ***************

ah that's very good! As I said below to someone else, that should happen a lot more often. Leave the responsibility where it belongs. In the airline's conditions you'll find that the passenger is responsible for getting proper visa etc anyway.

@Luit ****************

they put it to the airlines strangely enough to protect travelers. If airlines wouldn't pre-check entry eligibility, nothing stops the Thai authorities from still doing that and just let people fly back. But that's an expensive joke; the airline will charge whatever they want and if you can't enter Thailand you have not much of a choice but paying (or even taking debt).

So the intention is good, but it puts airlines in a aan uncomfortable spot. Obviously they cannot refuse a paying customer who is eligible to enter. As the fines that countries impose take away any room for the opposite error, they don't have room for any. They must always make the exact right decision. Travelers however are less likely to step up for their right, so in case of doubt, it's understandable they go for the refusal. So a measure that aims to protect travelers actually makes paying customers who are eligible to enter getting refused boarding.

Travelers are required by the airline's terms and conditions to take care of their own entry eligibility anyways. So the waiver could solve the above challenge. If they'd do this more often and consider the pre-check on entry eligibility just advisory, then all those unjust refusals could be a thing of the past.

I can give you a sample with a slightly larger N than just 1 if that has any value to you. I flew Emirates 7 times (6 from AMS, 1 from HKG), and my entry eligibility was checked 6 times in AMS (100%) and 0 times in HKG (0%).