C17PSGR

I'm not sure that Australia or Europe has a habit of flagging people based on their occupation, relationships, or sharing a names with those who do. Plus, the visa rules are usually unambiguous and the immigrations folks will likely tell you why you weren't admitted. They also won't hold AA responsible and might be more receptive to a discussion that they have the wrong person.

As it is, this isn't an AA problem since it happens across airlines and even across countries. It appears that most posters here have found immigration to not strictly apply the language regarding a ticket to a third country while the Timatic folks at IATA figured they should write language that requires a ticket to a third country. Considering the Timatic language, it's not surprising that OP had a problem or that an AA agent would follow the Timatic guidance.

Notwithstanding the experience of some of the posters here, the OP's approach should be seen as assuming the risk.

gengar

No, it's just that you obfuscate the issue by insisting on using your own, limited definition of "ticket to a third country" instead of what China's border control policy on TWOV means by (roughly translated) "onwards to a third country".

This also ignores that if TIMATIC does not accurately represent the actual border control policies of countries, yet AA still chooses to rely on TIMATIC, it is still a customer service failure.

C17PSGR

I don't claim to be able to read border control policy in native language but the Shanghai immigration website itself states that: "tickets to a third country" are required. http://www.sh-immigration.gov.cn/lis...?lx=40&id=4421

That's obviously different than your translation. Perhaps your translation is a more accurate translation than that of the Shanghai General Station translation. Still, why should Timatic follow your translation rather than the one posted by the government or AA ignore Timatic language consistent with that of the Shanghai General Station based on the personal experience of some of the posters? And, can we depend that Chinese immigration officials won't decide to refuse a flagged person using the Shanghai General Station interpretation rather than yours?

gengar

Somehow, you still manage to completely miss the point that the actual words used are irrelevant. I don't care if you translate it as "tickets to third country" or "onwards to third country" (and after all, it has been pointed out in this thread that a return itinerary to original country with a single flight number, even if it connects in a third country, is insufficient to satisfy TWOV). It is the meaning of the words that are important, and what actually happens that is important - not what arbitrary words are used and certainly not your limited definition of them.

As for the rest of your post, it's already been asked and answered repeatedly in this thread. AA cannot decide to use TIMATIC as their CYA tool to determine border control policy, then wash their hands of responsibility when they incorrectly use and/or interpret TIMATIC, or even when TIMATIC is wrong. You can keep trying to cover for AA by saying that other transportation companies might get it wrong too, but that's a completely inane and anecdotal argument. It doesn't make things any better for AA or its customers. It's nearly as irrelevant as your insistence on continuing to bring up the bewilderingly off-topic issue of travelers who might be flagged or blacklisted by China / its various governmental entities.

moondog

Rather than continue this endless linguistics gymnastics ritual, perhaps a bit of explanation about how procedures work in the practical sense would help you get a better sense of the picture.

Whenever you depart from China on a commercial flight, it is necessary to provide border control with a boarding pass for your departing flight along with a departure card where you fill in the flight number and destination (fyi, the destination of DL 296* is NRT, as far as they know/care). You might have a dozen other boarding passes because you are embarking on a 3 day flying escapade, but the immigration person is only interested in the boarding pass that he/she is going to stamp you out with (this also gets stored in their computer system).

Now, let's back up to when you arrive in China several days prior. The immigration person who admits you into China under TWOV merely needs to see proof that you are going to be able to pull off the above (i.e. board a flight to a third country within the applicable time limit).

*Someone mentioned this specific flight upthread. When you take it all the way to ATL, you receive separate boarding passes for each segment upon checkin in Shanghai.

TProphet

They actually weren't correct. The AAgents were flat wrong in denying here. There is no way to spin this.

The rule is that if you fly into China, you can't return directly to the country you came from. You have to travel onward to a third country. It doesn't matter what your plans are in that third country, or for how long they are.

This is a very, very simple rule. And China actually wants you to do this. It's why they set this up and why Shanghai in particular has extended the visa free "transit" period.

The OP is due compensation and an apology from AA.

Note: I lived in Beijing for 3 years, and transited Shanghai without visa last month.

More on TWOV policy here: https://www.seat31b.com/2014/03/72-h...ithout-a-visa/ (the only thing that has changed is more cities allow it now, and Shanghai plus two smaller cities allow it for 144 hours now)

fpmurphy

I respectfully disagree. MSPeconomist is not an expert in this area.

JonNYC

If, by "More on TWOV policy here" you mean "Ooh! a chance to link to my blog"-- I think the folks here have it covered, thanks though.


As far as:
We'll see what is forthcoming in that area.

no2chem

Honestly, the fact that people take the word transit and are attempting to apply a narrow, English legal definition to a Chinese regulation is disheartening.

Ever stop to think that words in other languages may translate poorly to other languages without context?

​​​​​
Like how 144h itself doesn't make much sense as a "transit" in the narrow sense?

anacapamalibu

That was retracted up thread. The TWOV WIKI on China Forum has 342k views. Many contribute to keep it updated as China adds more cities and extends duration. The 3rd country rule has been in effect from day one of the Beijing Shanghai 24 hr first offered. That hasn't changed.

C17PSGR

I appreciate the fact that those of you who are the moderators for the China forum and who maintain the thread in the China have extensive knowledge of how the TWOV procedures work in the practical sense. Perhaps, its also worth reminding travelers that there is no guarantee that simply connecting in a third country on the way home will allow the traveler to avoid a Chinese visa and they are taking some risk that could be easily addressed by applying for a visa.

This thread, however, focuses on a concern by the OP that AA's following of the language in Timatic, which in turn follows the language put out by the Shanghai immigration authorities, constitutes a customer service problem.

In a practical sense, I'll accept your view that normally Chinese immigration won't really follow the written procedures and require you to have a ticket to a third country but really just cares that you have a boarding pass for a third country. I'll even ignore the concept that if the Shanghai or other Chinese immigration authorities really wanted to create a 144 hour tourist visa for certain countries, they could do that.

However, simply accepting how TWOV procedures normally work is risky. If the traveler is flagged, TWOV will not work and Chinese immigration will almost certainly use the language requiring a ticket to a third country as a basis. Moreover, its unreasonable to expect dozens of airlines that fly either directly or indirectly to ignore the language of the rules and simply accept how things work in a practical sense.

For example, lets assume the GA at LAX let the OP and his family fly (and didn't read the language in Timatic carefully -- which is the same used by Shanghai immigration) and that the OP happened to share a name of someone that was flagged leading to the OP being denied admission and having his family sent back to LAX with the stated explanation that his trip didn't meet the language of the TWOV rules. Wouldn't OP have a better case on AA customer service issues by complaining that the GA should have followed the language in Timatic?

YuropFlyer

C17PSGR, I don't know why you're defending AA. The rules are 100% clear cut. OP had a perfectly compliant schedule. There are no more questions about it.

Also, Chinese authorities aren't known to "interpret" rules as you apparently think. It's either allowed or not. I've also yet to hear from someone using TWOV to be denied entry into China based on anything.

China should demand from foreign airlines - especially US-American and Japanese ones, since they seem to have the biggest trouble with TIMATIC rules - to increase staff education, or to start handing out fees to airlines that refuse boarding despite all documents being in perfect order.

txflyer77

We've descended into a realm of hypotheticals for which there is no evidence. Not one single shred that this mythical scenario wherein Chinese immigration authorities refuse valid TWOV itineraries has ever been reported.

The idea that Chinese authorities are ignoring the written rules about TWOV to allow itineraries like OP's is farcical. Such itineraries are 100% compliant and clearly allowed by the Chinese.

Why are we mincing words and inventing fake hypotheticals to support AA? The airline was 100% wrong, OP was 100% right.

AA owes OP a lot of money. End of story.

Often1

China's policy is immaterial to AA. The language of Chinese rules in the context of IATA definitions are going to be applied until and unless the Chinese government inserts itself into the debate and supplies a specific definition in writing for the term.

IATA simply abstracts the words of various immigration policies around the world and then cuts and pastes that into a database. It does not purport to interpret Chinese or any other law. That is the entire purpose of TIMATIC. Ground agents are not lawyers and even if they are, they are certainly not lawyers with training in however many countries are served from their employer serves. The goal is to create a simple database into which one inputs simple unambiguous information and receives clear information back.

Here that does not work.

IATA uses certain generic terms and some of those are words such as "transit."

If you look at other situations in TIMATIC, you will see that there are published exceptions on occasion. Those occur when a government supplies a legal opinion to IATA, allowing IATA to create the equivalent of a footnote.

If it wished to do so, the appropriate liaison to IATA could supply such an opinion to IATA. When it does, an agent inputting OP's details will see a note which would direct him to input NRT as the destination if within 144 hours and the "No Visa Required" response would appear.

For all of the contentious threads on this topic, it is remarkable that someone with contacts has not made this happen.

MSPeconomist

I don't know how someone could have a boarding pass without having not only a valid ticket but also a confirmed reservation, unless of course the person gets the boarding pass at the gate as either a passenger without a seat assignment or a standby. Moreover, one receives the boarding pass either during OLCI, typically starting at T-24 or upon checking in at the airport on the day of travel. You can't be expected to show the departing boarding pass when you enter China for TWOV unless you're staying in China less than 24 hours.

TWOV requires a ticket (receipt with ticket number) and itinerary showing that the flight out of China to the "third country."