Apr 25, 2017, 6:09 am
Last edit by: JDiver
AA Ground Staff May Deny Boarding for China Transit Without Visa Issues
This thread is ONLY for discussion of American Airlines' ground staff dealing with Chinese TWOV issues. For further information, see:
FlyerTalk Forums > Destinations > Asia > China Forum
China Visa / Visas Master Thread (all you need to know)
and / or
China 24, 72, and 144 hour Transit Without Visa ("TWOV") rules master thread
The issue: though Chinese immigration authorities seem disposed to allow transit without visa for passengers going on to flights with connections in non-China, non-origin destinations, e.g. LAX-PVG <permitted TWOV> PVG-NRT-LAX, AA ground staff have denied boarding to passengers for the XXX-China leg.
Even if such a passenger were to secure alternate arrangements or reimbursement, there is still sure to be considerable inconvenience. Until AA informs ground staff such travel complies with China TWOV rules, purchasing such an itinerary currently entails some degree of risk, as evidenced in the following thread.
AA generally uses IATA Timatic to verify boarding eligibility. Link to Timatic Web provided courtesy of United Airlines; this form provides information on entry requirements, not departure policies as might be administered by any airline.
144 TWOV China- AA Issues/Questions
Apr 17, 2017, 11:06 pm
#46
Join Date: May 2007
Programs: AAdvantage, Hilton
Posts: 3,191
Apr 17, 2017, 11:06 pm
#47
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 5,270
Written communications of any kind from a diplomatic official in most instances are considered pretty rock-solid. However, the airline agent has the final say over whether or not to accept that as evidence of permission to travel.
Apr 17, 2017, 11:07 pm
#48
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: SoCal to the rest of the world...
Programs: AA EXP with lots of BA. UA 2MM Lifetime Plat - No longer chase hotel loyalty
Posts: 6,699
I would have gotten visa's.
Let me make this clearer. I've done TWOV about 10 times going LAX/SFO-PEK-KUL or LAX/SFO-PEK-SIN. Some airlines will interpret the rules differently, in my cases PEK was always a transit point that I choose to stay for 48 hours or so for meetings and avoided a Chinese Visa. I've also attempted LAX-HKG-PEK-SFO and CX denied the TWOV waiver - had CX then accept if I re-issue the UA PEK-SFO segment to SAME day connect they would allow me to continue. Did that, they confirmed, and I flew to PEK. Had my OLD itin ready for Chinese immigration and they let me in TWOV. Switched my UA flight back to 48 hours later. Again I was prepared to NOT be let in and just transit back home.
Generally on TWOV with most Airlines I've seen the burden to be you are continuing onwards and spending MORE than 48 hours in the other country. There is a grey area though on the CX/UA routing I did. Chinese immigration may be more lax in reality but the Air carriers are more cautious. In the case of my CX HKG stop it was just that a stopover - OK I left the airport for 7 hours for meetings but it was a stopover - out of LAX they didn't catch it and I just mentioned TWOV. In HKG I was questioned on it before boarding and did the switch quick on the UA flight as they were about to move me to HKG-SFO on CX (Ticket was issued by CX). Basically had the same as the OP but it was the OUTBOUND I did the other country connect.
Let me make this clearer. I've done TWOV about 10 times going LAX/SFO-PEK-KUL or LAX/SFO-PEK-SIN. Some airlines will interpret the rules differently, in my cases PEK was always a transit point that I choose to stay for 48 hours or so for meetings and avoided a Chinese Visa. I've also attempted LAX-HKG-PEK-SFO and CX denied the TWOV waiver - had CX then accept if I re-issue the UA PEK-SFO segment to SAME day connect they would allow me to continue. Did that, they confirmed, and I flew to PEK. Had my OLD itin ready for Chinese immigration and they let me in TWOV. Switched my UA flight back to 48 hours later. Again I was prepared to NOT be let in and just transit back home.
Generally on TWOV with most Airlines I've seen the burden to be you are continuing onwards and spending MORE than 48 hours in the other country. There is a grey area though on the CX/UA routing I did. Chinese immigration may be more lax in reality but the Air carriers are more cautious. In the case of my CX HKG stop it was just that a stopover - OK I left the airport for 7 hours for meetings but it was a stopover - out of LAX they didn't catch it and I just mentioned TWOV. In HKG I was questioned on it before boarding and did the switch quick on the UA flight as they were about to move me to HKG-SFO on CX (Ticket was issued by CX). Basically had the same as the OP but it was the OUTBOUND I did the other country connect.
Last edited by NickP 1K; Apr 17, 2017 at 11:17 pm
Apr 17, 2017, 11:07 pm
#49
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 11
Well put, (and welcome to FT!) but, I would take tiny exception with "So really everyone is "right" -- -not- out of some need to be right personally here, rather, I'd say it only matters if the check-in agent is right-- and certainly it sounds like your take is, they are (to not allow the ticket as-is.)
Ultimately China needs to clarify the rule. If they don't care make it clear in the regulation. As is it is dreadfully vague and as stated requires the agent to identify China as a transit location. As you note numerous times above - that's a tall order for a lot of people when common sense clearly shows China is the destination.
Apr 17, 2017, 11:08 pm
#50
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 11
Front line embassy staff? I'd quibble since I've seen that crumble in the past.
Apr 17, 2017, 11:08 pm
#51
Join Date: May 2007
Programs: AAdvantage, Hilton
Posts: 3,191
Apr 17, 2017, 11:09 pm
#52
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 36
As someone who works with a lot of government actions, I would emphasize that governments are big and full of people who say a lot of things. Having something in writing from a government employee does not supersede the actual law/regulation. I've seen government employees tell people in writing dozens of things are totally fine only to find out it was, in fact, not okay.
Again - it's just an email.
Again - it's just an email.
Apr 17, 2017, 11:09 pm
#53
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: FIND ME ON TWITTER FOR THE LATEST
Posts: 27,730
Thanks, and very true. Hence the quotation marks.
Ultimately China needs to clarify the rule. If they don't care make it clear in the regulation. As is it is dreadfully vague and as stated requires the agent to identify China as a transit location. As you note numerous times above - that's a tall order for a lot of people when common sense clearly shows China is the destination.
Ultimately China needs to clarify the rule. If they don't care make it clear in the regulation. As is it is dreadfully vague and as stated requires the agent to identify China as a transit location. As you note numerous times above - that's a tall order for a lot of people when common sense clearly shows China is the destination.
Fair enough. And I agree, no matter how technically correct one may be (which is of course, the best kind of correct) in the long run it's easiest to just get the visa. The only reason I didn't is because my passport expires later this year (so less than 11 months validity which is required for a 10 year visa) and not being able to go on the trip was of minimal impact if things didn't work out.
I would encourage anyone else just to get the visa to prevent any issues (and am planning on getting my own as soon as I renew my passport next week).
I would encourage anyone else just to get the visa to prevent any issues (and am planning on getting my own as soon as I renew my passport next week).
Apr 17, 2017, 11:10 pm
#54
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: CHS
Programs: Lots
Posts: 1,012
I totally hear ya. Although "length of the stay in the third country" I'd still say is misleading a bit-- and more importantly very likely to trip up check-in agents-- as there is NO "length of the stay in the third country" on a transit in said country.
I definitely defer to those who say they've succeeded and even those who say the rule can be/should be/is often-- or even -is- that technically that transit in NRT solves all. But I'm steadfast in my opinion that winning that argument with a check-in agent will get no easier, until/unless the language in TIMATIC changes.
I definitely defer to those who say they've succeeded and even those who say the rule can be/should be/is often-- or even -is- that technically that transit in NRT solves all. But I'm steadfast in my opinion that winning that argument with a check-in agent will get no easier, until/unless the language in TIMATIC changes.
I would encourage anyone else just to get the visa to prevent any issues (and am planning on getting my own as soon as I renew my passport next week).
Apr 17, 2017, 11:11 pm
#55
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 5,270
Conversely, the OP could have a signed letter from the Premier of China himself and AA staff wouldn't be required to allow him to board (nor would they have the capacity to verify it in the first place).
Apr 17, 2017, 11:11 pm
#56
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 36
Thanks, and very true. Hence the quotation marks.
Ultimately China needs to clarify the rule. If they don't care make it clear in the regulation. As is it is dreadfully vague and as stated requires the agent to identify China as a transit location. As you note numerous times above - that's a tall order for a lot of people when common sense clearly shows China is the destination.
Ultimately China needs to clarify the rule. If they don't care make it clear in the regulation. As is it is dreadfully vague and as stated requires the agent to identify China as a transit location. As you note numerous times above - that's a tall order for a lot of people when common sense clearly shows China is the destination.
Apr 17, 2017, 11:13 pm
#57
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 11
Even if you did all that you could have done (and honestly it seems like you did!), it doesn't change the fact that the policy is vague and poorly enforced. Sometimes it's not anything you did, you just get swept up in the current.
Apr 17, 2017, 11:14 pm
#58
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 11
Apr 17, 2017, 11:17 pm
#59
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: FIND ME ON TWITTER FOR THE LATEST
Posts: 27,730
But would it not be the case that as long as NRT was an actual stop on the return ticket, rather than a transit, that the length of said stop would probably be of no relevance?
Apr 17, 2017, 11:18 pm
#60
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: SoCal to the rest of the world...
Programs: AA EXP with lots of BA. UA 2MM Lifetime Plat - No longer chase hotel loyalty
Posts: 6,699
My CX experience I posted above tells me that the carrier wants to see the other stop being more than 2 days.