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 23, 2017, 6:21 am
#436
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 272
I was wondering why nobody is quoting the official rules (although I have to admit, only read about 2/3 of the pages of this thread, so maybe somebody did):
http://sh-immigration.gov.cn/listPag...?lx=40&id=4414
FAQ for the 144hrs TWOV, question 13 covers pretty much the case of the OP and qualify his/her itinerary as compliant. They literally point you towards what the OP did.
http://sh-immigration.gov.cn/listPag...?lx=40&id=4414
FAQ for the 144hrs TWOV, question 13 covers pretty much the case of the OP and qualify his/her itinerary as compliant. They literally point you towards what the OP did.
Apr 23, 2017, 7:40 am
#437
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Over the North Atlantic
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 494
It could be a BA15 type itinerary (LHR-SIN-SYD). I don't see it now but CZ could've had a flight that is marketed as Istanbul to Beijing but via URC. This little detail probably slipped their minds. In that case, it wouldn't be TWOV-compliant.
Apr 23, 2017, 7:46 am
#438
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,399
Getting OT, but in many ways, it would be an improvement if every flight segment were required to have a distinct flight number.
Apr 23, 2017, 8:39 am
#440
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: AMS
Programs: TK*G, KL, AB
Posts: 143
LAX - PVG (ticket 1)
5 days at PVG
PVG - NRT (ticket 2)
NRT - PVG (ticket 2)
5 days at PVG
PVG - LAX (ticket 1).
If so, how does the Agent in your example address this? Clearly, the agent in LAX sees no transit on the passenger's AA itinerary. But visa-free transit at PVG is possible both ways.
Apr 23, 2017, 9:02 am
#441
Join Date: Sep 2008
Programs: A3 *G, AA exePlat, AS MVP 75k Gold, JL sapphire, UA silver
Posts: 4,035
loyalty lobby has an article recently about transit without visa in china recently. he claimed that it has been tightened, and he knows people who had booked another ticket out of china to satisfy the requirement, and cancelled once entered china. when they left china, they were banned for TWOV indefinitely.
http://loyaltylobby.com/2017/04/15/new-regulations-for-72-hour-visa-free-transit-in-beijing-application-form-and-background-check-required-for-stays-over-24-hours
http://loyaltylobby.com/2017/04/15/new-regulations-for-72-hour-visa-free-transit-in-beijing-application-form-and-background-check-required-for-stays-over-24-hours
Apr 23, 2017, 9:18 am
#442
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SIN (with a bit of ZRH sprinkled in)
Posts: 9,453
loyalty lobby has an article recently about transit without visa in china recently. he claimed that it has been tightened, and he knows people who had booked another ticket out of china to satisfy the requirement, and cancelled once entered china. when they left china, they were banned for TWOV indefinitely.
http://loyaltylobby.com/2017/04/15/n...-over-24-hours
http://loyaltylobby.com/2017/04/15/n...-over-24-hours
Yes, this new form exists, this had been discussed here on FT for quite a while already.
His assumption that "collection of biometric data (fingerprints and photos) hasn’t been implemented yet. Once this hits you can expect extensive wait times for any entry to China." is complete guessing.
First of all, fingerprints are taken at many airports NOT causing massive waiting times (for example, Hong Kong does fingerprint me each time I enter)
Second, Chinese immigration might look slow, but there I've never had a waiting time above 40min. Not good, but far better than what I've heard from a country having an orange leader.
Back to TWOV, the only (!) guy/gal that he claims was banned from using TWOV was apparently cheating the system by flying Country A - China - Country A. With a throw-away (or cancelled) ticket China - Country B.
It was been MORE THAN CLEARLY discussed here on FT that doing this is a VERY dumb idea. Good to see that China cracks down on cheaters. Regular TWOV use is perfectly fine.
After cracking down on TWOV cheaters, I hope China cracks down on airlines denying boarding to pax with good schedules in the same way, ie revoking them landing rights to China. At least till they invest into better (educated) staff.
Last edited by Microwave; Apr 23, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Apr 23, 2017, 9:24 am
#443
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,222
loyalty lobby has an article recently about transit without visa in china recently. he claimed that it has been tightened, and he knows people who had booked another ticket out of china to satisfy the requirement, and cancelled once entered china. when they left china, they were banned for TWOV indefinitely.
http://loyaltylobby.com/2017/04/15/new-regulations-for-72-hour-visa-free-transit-in-beijing-application-form-and-background-check-required-for-stays-over-24-hours
http://loyaltylobby.com/2017/04/15/new-regulations-for-72-hour-visa-free-transit-in-beijing-application-form-and-background-check-required-for-stays-over-24-hours
Ive often wondered why the check in people at the US airlines just don't place a friendly call to their colleagues at the Chinese big 3 when they are unclear. I'm sure they will know the proper interpretation of the rules.
AA was wrong full stop, no ifs ands or buts.
Apr 23, 2017, 10:51 am
#444
Join Date: Jun 2004
Programs: UA-1K, AA-Gold, H GP-LIfeTime Diamond
Posts: 819
China has very simple, clear-cut policy for TWOV and it is very consistently applied. There are no gray areas. None.
You have to leave from one country and travel through China to a third country.
That's it.
Your ticket out of China has to be to a country different than the one you came from.
That's all.
You have to leave from one country and travel through China to a third country.
That's it.
Your ticket out of China has to be to a country different than the one you came from.
That's all.
Booked award tickets on AA for HKG-PVG-TPE. Rather than mixing other OW airlines, tickets were booked on CX's HKG-PVG-HKG (1.5 hours layover)-TPE flights. CX allowed us to board in HKG due to transiting PVG to TPE without China visa, but we were deported in PVG. Chinese custom sees their port of entry as the transit point and all they care about is your inbound and outbound flights and nothing more. AAA-China-CCC formula must contain 3 different countries.
Sorry to hear AA system see this differently.
Apr 23, 2017, 11:06 am
#445
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SLC/HEL/Anywhere with a Beach
Programs: Marriott Ambassador; AA EXP 3MM; AS MVP, Hilton Gold, CH-47/UH-60/C-23/C-130 VET
Posts: 5,234
Agreed, their itinerary appears to not have been TWOV compliant, although they thought it was since they were going to PEK, yet a Chinese airline let them on without a visa, they were detained for several hours in an immigration jail and then deported. Of course, they blame the airline for letting them on.
Perhaps, rather than cracking down on anyone, China could issue guidance to the IATA that would eliminate this issue that appears to be ongoing. It likely happens more than this -- we only know it because .00000000001 percent of the traveling public posts on FT. I'm surprised the TWOV advocates here aren't working that angle since it would fix it for everyone -- assuming your interpretation of TWOV is correct and that the Chinese government wants to eliminate any ambiguity.
Well ... if there is a guarantee, why wasn't OP able to travel? There are other reports on FT as well involving United, DL, BA, and some other airlines of travelers having similar problems.
If you're going to advise people that TWOV always works -- guaranteed -- people might rely on that. Of course, they are the ones left holding the bag -- and not a TWOV advocate.
As for denying people entrance to China because of Chinese criminal records ... that's the least of the issue. Among other things, China will deny entrance to someone if they work for a media company, are the relative of someone deemed inadmissible, or share the name of that person. It may not be obvious to someone that they will not be allowed to enter China -- if one applies for a visa to China rather than relying on TWOV, they'll know that up front.
This issue has been discussed ... the question is the meaning of having a "ticket to a third country." Some, including myself, would say that the OP had a ticket back to LAX with a connection at NRT. Others, including the TWOV advocates from the Chinese forum have asserted that the Chinese immigration officials don't draw a distinction -- they simply care that someone has an onward flight to a third country.
The problem is --- like it or not --- that Timatic (prepared by the IATA presumably with the input from the Chinese representative to the IATA) requires an agent to verify the visa requirements by inputting a destination. If the agent inputs PVG as the destination since that is where the OP was actually going, then the system says a visa is required. To get to the TWOV policy, the agent has to input NRT as the destination, which was obviously not the case.
So ... the real issue here has nothing to do with AA, BA, DL, UA or any of the other airlines around the world applying Timatic, it really has to do with the Chinese representative to the IATA providing information to the IATA regarding how the visa should be applied. We can all speculate why, if the policy operates as the TWOV advocates here suggest, the Chinese government hasn't simply alerted the IATA that any onward flight out of China to a third country will purportedly qualify them for TWOV.
Actually there is a guarantee and there is no risk.
There are cases where people have tried to use TWOV when they're otherwise inadmissible to China. For example, people with a criminal record in China. Of course, China reserves the right to deny entry in this case, but this is no different from an airline's perspective than transporting a US citizen to, say, the UK without a visa whereupon the UK denies entry based on this.
There are cases where people have tried to use TWOV when they're otherwise inadmissible to China. For example, people with a criminal record in China. Of course, China reserves the right to deny entry in this case, but this is no different from an airline's perspective than transporting a US citizen to, say, the UK without a visa whereupon the UK denies entry based on this.
If you're going to advise people that TWOV always works -- guaranteed -- people might rely on that. Of course, they are the ones left holding the bag -- and not a TWOV advocate.
As for denying people entrance to China because of Chinese criminal records ... that's the least of the issue. Among other things, China will deny entrance to someone if they work for a media company, are the relative of someone deemed inadmissible, or share the name of that person. It may not be obvious to someone that they will not be allowed to enter China -- if one applies for a visa to China rather than relying on TWOV, they'll know that up front.
I was wondering why nobody is quoting the official rules (although I have to admit, only read about 2/3 of the pages of this thread, so maybe somebody did):
http://sh-immigration.gov.cn/listPag...?lx=40&id=4414
FAQ for the 144hrs TWOV, question 13 covers pretty much the case of the OP and qualify his/her itinerary as compliant. They literally point you towards what the OP did.
http://sh-immigration.gov.cn/listPag...?lx=40&id=4414
FAQ for the 144hrs TWOV, question 13 covers pretty much the case of the OP and qualify his/her itinerary as compliant. They literally point you towards what the OP did.
The problem is --- like it or not --- that Timatic (prepared by the IATA presumably with the input from the Chinese representative to the IATA) requires an agent to verify the visa requirements by inputting a destination. If the agent inputs PVG as the destination since that is where the OP was actually going, then the system says a visa is required. To get to the TWOV policy, the agent has to input NRT as the destination, which was obviously not the case.
So ... the real issue here has nothing to do with AA, BA, DL, UA or any of the other airlines around the world applying Timatic, it really has to do with the Chinese representative to the IATA providing information to the IATA regarding how the visa should be applied. We can all speculate why, if the policy operates as the TWOV advocates here suggest, the Chinese government hasn't simply alerted the IATA that any onward flight out of China to a third country will purportedly qualify them for TWOV.
Apr 23, 2017, 11:41 am
#446
Join Date: Sep 2008
Programs: A3 *G, AA exePlat, AS MVP 75k Gold, JL sapphire, UA silver
Posts: 4,035
Yes, this new form exists, this had been discussed here on FT for quite a while already.
His assumption that "collection of biometric data (fingerprints and photos) hasn’t been implemented yet. Once this hits you can expect extensive wait times for any entry to China." is complete guessing.
First of all, fingerprints are taken at many airports NOT causing massive waiting times (for example, Hong Kong does fingerprint me each time I enter)
Second, Chinese immigration might look slow, but there I've never had a waiting time above 40min. Not good, but far better than what I've heard from a country having an orange leader.
Back to TWOV, the only (!) guy/gal that he claims was banned from using TWOV was apparently cheating the system by flying Country A - China - Country A. With a throw-away (or cancelled) ticket China - Country B.
It was been MORE THAN CLEARLY discussed here on FT that doing this is a VERY dumb idea. Good to see that China cracks down on cheaters. Regular TWOV use is perfectly fine.
After cracking down on TWOV cheaters, I hope China cracks down on airlines denying boarding to pax with good schedules in the same way, ie revoking them landing rights to China. At least till they invest into better (educated) staff.
His assumption that "collection of biometric data (fingerprints and photos) hasn’t been implemented yet. Once this hits you can expect extensive wait times for any entry to China." is complete guessing.
First of all, fingerprints are taken at many airports NOT causing massive waiting times (for example, Hong Kong does fingerprint me each time I enter)
Second, Chinese immigration might look slow, but there I've never had a waiting time above 40min. Not good, but far better than what I've heard from a country having an orange leader.
Back to TWOV, the only (!) guy/gal that he claims was banned from using TWOV was apparently cheating the system by flying Country A - China - Country A. With a throw-away (or cancelled) ticket China - Country B.
It was been MORE THAN CLEARLY discussed here on FT that doing this is a VERY dumb idea. Good to see that China cracks down on cheaters. Regular TWOV use is perfectly fine.
After cracking down on TWOV cheaters, I hope China cracks down on airlines denying boarding to pax with good schedules in the same way, ie revoking them landing rights to China. At least till they invest into better (educated) staff.
to be fair to AA, the ticket is booked in such a way to get around the visa intentionally.
if the OP were to book a ticket PVG - HKG on the spot, it would have satisfied the requirement, right?
Last edited by Microwave; Apr 23, 2017 at 3:31 pm Reason: Edited quote of edited post
Apr 23, 2017, 11:45 am
#447
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: AMS
Programs: TK*G, KL, AB
Posts: 143
The problem is --- like it or not --- that Timatic (prepared by the IATA presumably with the input from the Chinese representative to the IATA) requires an agent to verify the visa requirements by inputting a destination. If the agent inputs PVG as the destination since that is where the OP was actually going, then the system says a visa is required. To get to the TWOV policy, the agent has to input NRT as the destination, which was obviously not the case.
Another way to insert the itinerary into Timatic is:
Transit 1: PVG
Transit 2: NRT
Destination: LAX
Apr 23, 2017, 11:48 am
#448
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 42,028
Apr 23, 2017, 11:55 am
#449
Join Date: Sep 2008
Programs: A3 *G, AA exePlat, AS MVP 75k Gold, JL sapphire, UA silver
Posts: 4,035
on the other hand, was the policy set up in a way for these type of trips? my bet is no.
It seems that FTers are just trying to take advantage of the policy (which I do all the time on other matters) for visa free entry to China Sometimes, you win, sometimes, you lose. In this case, the OP lost. It is unfortunate, but it happens. If China were to clarify the policy, it is not clear whether China would allow this. There are always ambiguity in law.
It seems that FTers are just trying to take advantage of the policy (which I do all the time on other matters) for visa free entry to China Sometimes, you win, sometimes, you lose. In this case, the OP lost. It is unfortunate, but it happens. If China were to clarify the policy, it is not clear whether China would allow this. There are always ambiguity in law.
Apr 23, 2017, 12:00 pm
#450
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 42,028
on the other hand, was the policy set up in a way for these type of trips? my bet is no.
It seems that FTers are just trying to take advantage of the policy (which I do all the time on other matters) for visa free entry to China Sometimes, you win, sometimes, you lose. In this case, the OP lost. It is unfortunate, but it happens. If China were to clarify the policy, it is not clear whether China would allow this. There are always ambiguity in law.
It seems that FTers are just trying to take advantage of the policy (which I do all the time on other matters) for visa free entry to China Sometimes, you win, sometimes, you lose. In this case, the OP lost. It is unfortunate, but it happens. If China were to clarify the policy, it is not clear whether China would allow this. There are always ambiguity in law.