passport control

Whats the line like on leaving bkk , I have been told its about 45mins or so or has this now inproved., My flight leaves at 0115 in the morning

Whats the line like on leaving bkk , I have been told its about 45mins or so or has this now inproved., My flight leaves at 0115 in the morningTG has many flights all leaving around the same time - within 30 minutes or so. It's also the sort of departure time flights arriving in Europe around breakfast time leave Bangkok

Whats the line like on leaving bkk , I have been told its about 45mins or so or has this now inproved., My flight leaves at 0115 in the morning

The TG checkin queues can be the problem taking over an hour, especially at busy times like that.

... on one of the occasions I have been in the queue, a couple of people tried to jump it because their plane was obviously about to depart - immigiration told them to get back in the queue and would not let them jump the queue.

I must admit on the occasions I travel to any airport, but specifically Bkk and Heathrow, I only allow just enough time, thinking at the same time, I will have enough time to get something to eat and "do the duty free runs", but there is always some kind of hold up, whether it be immigration, checking-in or even taxis to the airport. You need to allow "time" no matter what.

[Diec]

God some of you people are stupid. You think anyone here has any advice on how to speed up immigration? Does anyone know how I can get a free trip to Thialand? How long will I have to wait at the airport for a cup of coffee? Does anyone know a taxi that does not drive too fast or too slow?

You think anyone here has any advice on how to speed up immigration?I have an "official" passport so go through the diplomatic lane. The only thing that holds me up are the wheel-chair passengers who use the same lane

I reckon it will take you anything from 1 - 45 minutes to get through. Plan accordingly.

[jinks]

Wheel chairs are almost a guarantee of getting priority in check-in, immigration etc. Works every time :)

Too true, this poor cripple boy also knows how to use the system.

Last week, afternoon departure, one immigration area close to the TG counters had lines spilling over into the check-in area. I walked to the other immigration area at the far end and there was no-one.

Last week, afternoon departure, one immigration area close to the TG counters had lines spilling over into the check-in area. I walked to the other immigration area at the far end and there was no-one.

You're lucky you got through. I've tried that a couple times, but have been turned away and told to go to the correct immigration area for my flight.

We went back to the UK in March on a flight that left BKK at 9 am. I usually allow a couple of hours at the airport to check in and get through immigration and security. This time our taxi arrived early, the roads were very quiet and so we arrived about 2 3/4 hours before departure. Just as well we had the extra time as it took nearly all of it to finally get on the plane.

[tony279760-old]

In February it took me from 11.30pm to 1.45am to get through China Airlines check-in (1 hour) and immigration (1 hour 15 mins). No assistance was offered in the passport control area to anyone in danger of missing their flight. A few people started to complain but were simply told to get back to the end of the line. One man was threatened with arrest when he continued to protest. The only advice I can offer is to give yourself as much time as possible and maybe pop a valium.

In February it took me from 11.30pm to 1.45am to get through China Airlines check-in (1 hour) and immigration (1 hour 15 mins). No assistance was offered in the passport control area to anyone in danger of missing their flight. A few people started to complain but were simply told to get back to the end of the line. One man was threatened with arrest when he continued to protest. The only advice I can offer is to give yourself as much time as possible and maybe pop a valium.

China Airlines? You like to live on the edge, don't you? By my reckoning, they're just about due for their once-every-two-to-three-year "incident".

Well I have just arrived last night, to find hardly any queues and I was walking out of baggage hall with my luggage in 20 minutes wonderful.

Now my friends and I are all meeting up in Pattaya on Wednesday, to do some serious partying and from what I can see its going to be like the old days, when I use to cum to Pattaya, just a few farangs and many, many stunning handsome guys, only downer so far is the rain forecast storms for the next ten days.

So itтАЩs going to be lots of good food and lots of good wine, with a few special guys to help wash it all down? See you around! Your know me, the one with the big smile?

[Brad the Impala]

Wheel chairs are almost a guarantee of getting priority in check-in, immigration etc. Works every time :)

Too true, this poor cripple boy also knows how to use the system.

That will be a working taxi driver/moderator posing as a cripple to jump the queue?

[jinks]

Wheel chairs are almost a guarantee of getting priority in check-in, immigration etc. Works every time :)

Too true, this poor cripple boy also knows how to use the system.

That will be a working taxi driver/moderator posing as a cripple to jump the queue?

Why re-state what I had said ?

One does not pose, or take advantage that one is not entitled to, some of us just happen to have lost a leg, I looked many times, but still can't find it.

The biggest fun is putting my blue badge* on dash of my taxi, to the bemusement of traffic wardens and police officers when I park anywhere and everywhere :)

(*US residents read Handicapped badge.)

[Brad the Impala]

So sorry that you have mislaid your leg, and I have doubted your integrity. Your blue badge must give your customers pause for thought too!

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

what the hell is an "official passport " ..deportation papers ?

what the hell is an "official passport " ..deportation papers ?It's a passport or other ID issued by a government that "requests" immigration authorities to give some priority to the holder. If you look at the signs above the Thai counters they say "Thai", "Other", and "Diplomatic & Official"

what the hell is an "official passport " ..deportation papers ?It's a passport or other ID issued by a government that "requests" immigration authorities to give some priority to the holder. If you look at the signs above the Thai counters they say "Thai", "Other", and "Diplomatic & Official"

L O'B, I thought you would have known better!

Official passports are issued to government personnel travelling abroad on official duty (and their immediate dependants) who are not diplomats (who, travelling on duty, have diplomatic passports). They are issued for a maximum of five years and are renewed only if those applying for them (they are issued free of charge!) are still government employees and travelling overseas on duty. They are not automatically given priority, nor do they "request" it.

They are also issued to minor members of royal families who are not entitled to a diplomatic passport. Homi's entitlement to one appears to be questionable (as does his having one), as being an old queen rather than a crowned one is not sufficient.

Homi's entitlement to one appears to be questionable (as does his having one), as being an old queen rather than a crowned one is not sufficient.I've never made any secret that I have a New Zealand passport, issued to me by a grateful Australian government for services rendered to them, and an APEC Business Travel Card that gets me through the Official lane. Otherwise I use my UK passport (no APEC card for UK passport holders). I see the US has signed up for the scheme; I imagine (hope) they'll use theirs to go to China and pander to the "thugs and goons" (thank you Jack Cafferty for a statement of the bleeding obvious, however politically incorrect) in the Chinese government, rather than clutter up the Official Lane in Bangkok Airport when I want to use it
http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... g.php?w=40 (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/weblog.php?w=40)

"I've never made any secret that I have a New Zealand passport, issued to me by a grateful Australian government for services rendered to them". Homi, I'm sure this is all above board but how can the Australian government issue a passport for a foreign country (NZ)? And were the services rendered to Australia that of leaving for NZ?You should read the Australian Constitution. New Zealand is mentioned as a member of the Commonwealth of Australia, along with all the other British colonies in the region at the time. Those other colonies signed up; NZ is yet to sign up but according to the Act has the option of doing so at any time. So one reading of the Constitution is that NZ merely issues passports out of sheer bloody-mindedness; Australia can issue a passport of either nation since both options exist. Interestingly NZ's APEC Business Travel Card scheme is administered out of Canberra, not Wellington. As to the services I rendered, my lips are sealed

I've never made any secret that I have a New Zealand passport, issued to me by a grateful Australian government for services rendered to them ... As to the services I rendered, my lips are sealed

Homi,

are you sure you are not living in Pattaya - you would be right at home among the ex- CIA / SAS / MI 6 / GSG 9 / Foreign Legion (and now probably even Spetsnaz) wannabees. You were delusional in your former persona as The Colonel, but now delusion is coupled with dementia.

Dual or multiple nationality (particularly within the British Commonwealth) is a sign of mixed parenthood, not a "grateful government".

The passport you use, regular or official, is irrelevant - your "fast track" through immigration is due to your APEC Business Travel Card, which is readily available to virtually any APEC national. The main drawback for residents is that any stay is limited to a maximum of 90 days.

Fattman,

don't waste your time checking the Australian Constitution (passed in 1900), although it is readily available and summarised by Wikipedia - there is no mention of "New Zealand ... along with all the other British colonies in the region at the time". Even if Homi's version were correct (which it clearly is not!) it was superseded in 1948 and again in 2005 in New Zealand and 2007 in Australia; Australia does not and has not issued passports for other countries.

don't waste your time checking the Australian Constitution (passed in 1900), although it is readily available and summarised by Wikipedia - there is no mention of "New Zealand ... along with all the other British colonies in the region at the time"
An then there's the preamble to the Constitution itself


6. "The Commonwealth" shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.
"The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called "a State".
http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/Co ... eamble.htm (http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/Constitution/preamble.htm)

Otherwise I bow to your superior knowledge; you, after all, must have been there to know

don't waste your time checking the Australian Constitution (passed in 1900), although it is readily available and summarised by Wikipedia - there is no mention of "New Zealand ... along with all the other British colonies in the region at the time"
An then there's the preamble to the Constitution itself


6. "The Commonwealth" shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.
"The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called "a State".
http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/Co ... eamble.htm (http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/Constitution/preamble.htm)

Otherwise I bow to your superior knowledge; you, after all, must have been there to know

Homi,

it is hardly relevant here, but you have completely misread the preamble - notably overlooking "such of the colonies .......as for the time being are part of the Commonwealth" - I have underlined it or you to make it clearer. As NZ was not part of the Commonwealth at the time, as it had withdrawn, it was not included but was given the option to join, which it has never exercised. The Act itself is very clear on this point as are both NZ and Australian references and teaching, summarized as follows:

On the first day of January, 1901, the Commonwealth of Australia officially came into being and the six Australian colonies, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia, became States of the newly created nation. Although New Zealand chose not to take any further part in the federation process after preliminary discussions, their representatives primary success was to ensure that New Zealand could, at any time she pleases, enter into the Commonwealth of Australia as a State without the need for approval from the other States. It is for this reason that New Zealand is included within section 6 of the Preamble to the Australian Constitution.

It is not a case of "superior knowledge", but of an ability to read and comprehend what is read, which you appear to lack. If by being there you mean have I been to Australia, the answer is yes. If you mean was I there at the time, no (I am not quite your vintage), but my forbears were (voluntarily!).

As this post actually highlights a readily available and speedy way for some to avoid the Thai immigration queues (the APEC Business Travel Card), which could be useful to some readers and is the first post of Homi's 4168 posts to actually contribute something constructive (albeit inadvertantly) here, I would ask that it not be moved to another forum.

... Gone Fishing - as a born-again bush lawyer you have a great career behind you ... or do I mean "ahead of you"? Perhaps you are that well-known legal critic Sir Murray Rivers QC**, come to live among the thought plebians of Pattaya? My old chum Lunchtime O'Booze told me there was another notorious old fraud from Down Under masquerading as a bit of an expert* living there

* expert, where x is the unknown quantity and a spurt is a drip under pressure :bounce:

** Sir Murray Rivers QC - http://www.saxton.com.au/default.asp?sd8=2009

My old chum Lunchtime O'Booze told me there was another notorious old fraud from Down Under masquerading as a bit of an expert* living there

Not guilty on any counts - not notorious, not old, not a fraud, not from Down Under, not masquerading as a bit of anything, and not actually living in Pattaya.

... not a fraud...Isn't that a matter of opinion? :cyclopsani: I guess you're owning up to being a bush lawyer (a bit hard to plead not guilty to that one)

... not a fraud...Isn't that a matter of opinion?

Colonel Homi,

Your knowledge of English is letting you down yet again:

Fraud: (Roget's Thesaurus - UK English): deception, scam, con, scheme, swindle, racket, hoax, deceit, fake, counterfeit, imitation, sham, imposter, charlatan, hoaxer, swindler, cheat, fake, sham, phony, fraudster

Fraud: (Encarta Dictionary - North American English): 1. Crime of cheating somebody (the crime of obtaining money or some other benefit by deliberate deception) 2. Somebody who deceives (somebody who deliberately deceives somebody else, usually for financial gain) 3. Something intended to deceive (something that is intended to deceive people)

As I am not claiming anything personally, and my posts (at least in this thread) concern verifiable fact, nothing more, the answer is "no" - it is fact, not opinion. If you are looking for a fraud (imposter,charlatan, fake, sham, phony, etc) you need only look in the mirror.

Bye-bye

If you are looking for a fraud (imposter,charlatan, fake, sham, phony, etc) you need only look in the mirror.I'll pass that thought on to the scriptwriting team