@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%).

@Ant **********

Nong Khai to Thanaleng, 300 baht.

@Pat *******

the airline will indeed always say yes. It's a strange misconception by the senior members in this group who keep advising to ask an airline about their enforcement policy.

The reason they'll always say yes is slightly different though: they are supposed to check this and a check is always possible if the check-in crew has time/feels like doing it. On the phone they cannot promise that you can get away with breaking the rule, they'll always tell you what's officially required.

@Frank *********

even if they don't enforce strictly, they'll always say that you need it on the phone. Things like enforcement strictness are much better asked in groups where people can share experiences.

@Johnnie *******

this should happen a lot more often. Leave the responsibility with the traveler. Where it should be.

@Stuart ********

calling will not help. Even if they are not very strict at the counter, on the phone they would never reveal that.

But I suspect they might be strict at the counter anyway so at least a backup plan is needed.

@Glenn ********

German strictness. Prepare to be forced to buy a ticket.

The one time in the past I did the same, it was also with Lufthansa, and they were strict.