Urgent help 72 h visa needed!
Jan 25, 2016, 3:51 am
#47
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 247
Hi airotique (great handle!!),
Wow, sounds like another really poor CA experience at ARN! Glad that you were at least able to take your trip, although significant aggravation and extra costs were involved...
You can certainly try the IATA route, but I fear that there is little chance that IATA will make any statements to you regarding TIMATIC, which is a service that is solely designed for, and sold to, its member airlines. Even if they do confirm the accuracy of their info (which I can personally confirm for PEK, since I was granted TWOV there for over 72 hours), there is no requirement for CA to use TIMATIC as the basis for its own policies.
In my opinion, your only hope for recourse is to get an official written statement confirming that your original itinerary was eligible for TWOV. The most logical places to obtain one would be the Chinese embassy or consulate at your place of residence, or the Beijing immigration authorities.
Hope that helps,
Andre
Wow, sounds like another really poor CA experience at ARN! Glad that you were at least able to take your trip, although significant aggravation and extra costs were involved...
I'm planning to alert IATA to this matter and ask them to confirm with their sources. If the TIMATIC entry is indeed correct, I feel CA has wronged us and at the very minimum we want to get our rebooking fees back. I find the way how the OP and we were treated by CA ARN unacceptable. Any advice on how to best proceed would be greatly appreciated.
In my opinion, your only hope for recourse is to get an official written statement confirming that your original itinerary was eligible for TWOV. The most logical places to obtain one would be the Chinese embassy or consulate at your place of residence, or the Beijing immigration authorities.
Hope that helps,
Andre
Last edited by Andre; Jan 25, 2016 at 4:02 am Reason: grammar
Jan 25, 2016, 4:57 am
#48
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 42,040
@Airotique:
Thank you for your excellent post, the juiciest and best one to date (in this thread) IMO.
You have clearly called out CA on its hypocrisy, and I sincerely hope that you stay the course (be prepared for a long battle, but mainly because they are slow to respond to individual correspondence events, and I estimate 20+ rounds will be required based on past experience). As I mentioned up thread, outsourcing the legwork to a lawyer might be worthy of consideration as well. In China, this is not expensive...not sure about sweden, but taking a shot at them there would surely cause CA greater head ache.
The way I see it is that your original itin was legally compliant, and CA --outdated policy or not-- had no legal grounds to prevent you from using it. Charging you change fees was an added slap in the face.
I agree with Andre that getting written clarification from Beijing border control would be a great place to start. I'm guessing that you could secure such documentation for around $100 (I.e. paying for the guanxi necessary to get you something really official/indisputable). You might want to consider contacting the OP in order to share this cost.
I think chasing down iata is a waste of time in general BUT they may well be able to connect you with someone who can help wrt the aforementioned documentation (I.e. whoever feeds them relevant data).
In closing, I'd like to reiterate my strong support in your fight. If you play your cards right, I'm confident that you WILL prevail, which means you'll get some financial compensation. More importantly, you'll be doing everyone else a service if you force CA's hand on this. Good luck!
Thank you for your excellent post, the juiciest and best one to date (in this thread) IMO.
You have clearly called out CA on its hypocrisy, and I sincerely hope that you stay the course (be prepared for a long battle, but mainly because they are slow to respond to individual correspondence events, and I estimate 20+ rounds will be required based on past experience). As I mentioned up thread, outsourcing the legwork to a lawyer might be worthy of consideration as well. In China, this is not expensive...not sure about sweden, but taking a shot at them there would surely cause CA greater head ache.
The way I see it is that your original itin was legally compliant, and CA --outdated policy or not-- had no legal grounds to prevent you from using it. Charging you change fees was an added slap in the face.
I agree with Andre that getting written clarification from Beijing border control would be a great place to start. I'm guessing that you could secure such documentation for around $100 (I.e. paying for the guanxi necessary to get you something really official/indisputable). You might want to consider contacting the OP in order to share this cost.
I think chasing down iata is a waste of time in general BUT they may well be able to connect you with someone who can help wrt the aforementioned documentation (I.e. whoever feeds them relevant data).
In closing, I'd like to reiterate my strong support in your fight. If you play your cards right, I'm confident that you WILL prevail, which means you'll get some financial compensation. More importantly, you'll be doing everyone else a service if you force CA's hand on this. Good luck!
Last edited by moondog; Jan 25, 2016 at 7:42 am
Jan 25, 2016, 9:32 am
#49
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Bear in mind that when dealing with front line air carrier employees, what's "official" are the directives of their own employer. Those are the people who hire, fire and pay them.
The whole debate about what else is official is a red herring. Private legal publishers around the world publish statutes, legal decisions, rules and regulations, orders and the like. People rely on them so they become "official." Sometimes they are designated as such and sometimes not.
The chances that any passenger is going to find a willing audience before the World Court of Counter and Gate Agents is slim.
My view? Large international air carriers would do well to staff trained help desks and many do. It is far easier to train an agent at ARN to punch a button on a phone than it is to have them interpret rules which some may see as complex (bearing in mind that the rest of the job is about reviewing a piece of paper to see if the date and flight number match today's date and the flight number of the aircraft being boarded.
The whole debate about what else is official is a red herring. Private legal publishers around the world publish statutes, legal decisions, rules and regulations, orders and the like. People rely on them so they become "official." Sometimes they are designated as such and sometimes not.
The chances that any passenger is going to find a willing audience before the World Court of Counter and Gate Agents is slim.
My view? Large international air carriers would do well to staff trained help desks and many do. It is far easier to train an agent at ARN to punch a button on a phone than it is to have them interpret rules which some may see as complex (bearing in mind that the rest of the job is about reviewing a piece of paper to see if the date and flight number match today's date and the flight number of the aircraft being boarded.
Jan 27, 2016, 10:41 am
#50
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: YYZ
Posts: 648
The problem appears to be the CA staff at ARN.
Do you know if staff at other airlines/airports have the same lack of knowledge on the 72Hr rule?
I'm booking a flight from NRT-PEK on NH and will be arriving on March 22 @ 8pm and leaving on March 25 at 5pm to ICN.
Do you know if staff at other airlines/airports have the same lack of knowledge on the 72Hr rule?
I'm booking a flight from NRT-PEK on NH and will be arriving on March 22 @ 8pm and leaving on March 25 at 5pm to ICN.
Jan 27, 2016, 1:24 pm
#51
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
Ex Japan, staff may not be wholly familiar with the rules (Japanese pax can enter China without visa for short stays). Allow a some extra time just in case staff need to confirm the rules or check with a supervisor.
Jan 27, 2016, 1:57 pm
#52
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: YYZ
Posts: 648
Air China ex ARN and Delta ex USA seem to be the main issues reported.
Ex Japan, staff may not be wholly familiar with the rules (Japanese pax can enter China without visa for short stays). Allow a some extra time just in case staff need to confirm the rules or check with a supervisor.
Ex Japan, staff may not be wholly familiar with the rules (Japanese pax can enter China without visa for short stays). Allow a some extra time just in case staff need to confirm the rules or check with a supervisor.
could you suggest any website I can print out with something "official"?
Jan 27, 2016, 2:38 pm
#53
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
Thanks... hmmm... so, there is still a chance that we might be spending time arguing with them... Not having a visa makes a big difference $$ since we are a family of 5 (for just 3 days of visit in PEK)
could you suggest any website I can print out with something "official"?
could you suggest any website I can print out with something "official"?
There is another thread here on FT in the China forum... 24- and 72- hour visa. That is current and has the full rules from TIMATIC in the wiki at the top of the page.
Jan 28, 2016, 12:19 am
#54
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: 100,413
I came close to being denied boarding a DL NRT-PVG flight with a clearly TWOV compliant itinerary and ticket. It took about three hours of arguing and they finally decided to let me travel based on some OLTAs that were advertising TWOV trips to China. DL came close to insisting that I make a nonrefundable booking for an airport hotel (which they didn't realize was landside) as they were convinced that I would not be allowed to leave the airport and were very concerned about that. Four or five check in agents, a supervisor, and a redcoat were involved. Having TIMATIC printouts that morning from the SkyTeam website link didn't matter as the front line agents "believed" that I could not go to China without a visa; one of them (Chinese speaking) even phoned a friend in China to confirm this.
So the list should include not only DL exUSA but also DL exNRT.
So the list should include not only DL exUSA but also DL exNRT.
Jan 28, 2016, 12:49 am
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: QLA
Programs: SBUX Gold
Posts: 14,507
I came close to being denied boarding a DL NRT-PVG flight with a clearly TWOV compliant itinerary and ticket. It took about three hours of arguing and they finally decided to let me travel based on some OLTAs that were advertising TWOV trips to China. DL came close to insisting that I make a nonrefundable booking for an airport hotel (which they didn't realize was landside) as they were convinced that I would not be allowed to leave the airport and were very concerned about that. Four or five check in agents, a supervisor, and a redcoat were involved. Having TIMATIC printouts that morning from the SkyTeam website link didn't matter as the front line agents "believed" that I could not go to China without a visa; one of them (Chinese speaking) even phoned a friend in China to confirm this.
So the list should include not only DL exUSA but also DL exNRT.
So the list should include not only DL exUSA but also DL exNRT.
After at least 8-10 staffers reading it over on my printout as well as their own systems, they finally relented and gave me my BP. Good thing I showed up early.
Jan 29, 2016, 3:58 am
#56
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 12
Hi airotique (great handle!!),
Wow, sounds like another really poor CA experience at ARN! Glad that you were at least able to take your trip, although significant aggravation and extra costs were involved...
You can certainly try the IATA route, but I fear that there is little chance that IATA will make any statements to you regarding TIMATIC, which is a service that is solely designed for, and sold to, its member airlines. Even if they do confirm the accuracy of their info (which I can personally confirm for PEK, since I was granted TWOV there for over 72 hours), there is no requirement for CA to use TIMATIC as the basis for its own policies.
In my opinion, your only hope for recourse is to get an official written statement confirming that your original itinerary was eligible for TWOV. The most logical places to obtain one would be the Chinese embassy or consulate at your place of residence, or the Beijing immigration authorities.
Hope that helps,
Andre
Wow, sounds like another really poor CA experience at ARN! Glad that you were at least able to take your trip, although significant aggravation and extra costs were involved...
You can certainly try the IATA route, but I fear that there is little chance that IATA will make any statements to you regarding TIMATIC, which is a service that is solely designed for, and sold to, its member airlines. Even if they do confirm the accuracy of their info (which I can personally confirm for PEK, since I was granted TWOV there for over 72 hours), there is no requirement for CA to use TIMATIC as the basis for its own policies.
In my opinion, your only hope for recourse is to get an official written statement confirming that your original itinerary was eligible for TWOV. The most logical places to obtain one would be the Chinese embassy or consulate at your place of residence, or the Beijing immigration authorities.
Hope that helps,
Andre
Jan 29, 2016, 4:10 am
#57
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 12
Thanks!
It's good to hear about your first-hand experience. I hadn't considered that an airline may make up their own rules. If that's the case, would something official really help and wouldn't that mean that immigration laws merely set outer boundaries?
I really hope that an airline may not just "invent" their own regulations and use them as grounds for denied boarding. From my point of view that would result in an enormous lack of legal certainty.
It's good to hear about your first-hand experience. I hadn't considered that an airline may make up their own rules. If that's the case, would something official really help and wouldn't that mean that immigration laws merely set outer boundaries?
I really hope that an airline may not just "invent" their own regulations and use them as grounds for denied boarding. From my point of view that would result in an enormous lack of legal certainty.
Jan 29, 2016, 4:14 am
#58
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 12
@Airotique:
Thank you for your excellent post, the juiciest and best one to date (in this thread) IMO.
You have clearly called out CA on its hypocrisy, and I sincerely hope that you stay the course (be prepared for a long battle, but mainly because they are slow to respond to individual correspondence events, and I estimate 20+ rounds will be required based on past experience). As I mentioned up thread, outsourcing the legwork to a lawyer might be worthy of consideration as well. In China, this is not expensive...not sure about sweden, but taking a shot at them there would surely cause CA greater head ache.
The way I see it is that your original itin was legally compliant, and CA --outdated policy or not-- had no legal grounds to prevent you from using it. Charging you change fees was an added slap in the face.
I agree with Andre that getting written clarification from Beijing border control would be a great place to start. I'm guessing that you could secure such documentation for around $100 (I.e. paying for the guanxi necessary to get you something really official/indisputable). You might want to consider contacting the OP in order to share this cost.
I think chasing down iata is a waste of time in general BUT they may well be able to connect you with someone who can help wrt the aforementioned documentation (I.e. whoever feeds them relevant data).
In closing, I'd like to reiterate my strong support in your fight. If you play your cards right, I'm confident that you WILL prevail, which means you'll get some financial compensation. More importantly, you'll be doing everyone else a service if you force CA's hand on this. Good luck!
Thank you for your excellent post, the juiciest and best one to date (in this thread) IMO.
You have clearly called out CA on its hypocrisy, and I sincerely hope that you stay the course (be prepared for a long battle, but mainly because they are slow to respond to individual correspondence events, and I estimate 20+ rounds will be required based on past experience). As I mentioned up thread, outsourcing the legwork to a lawyer might be worthy of consideration as well. In China, this is not expensive...not sure about sweden, but taking a shot at them there would surely cause CA greater head ache.
The way I see it is that your original itin was legally compliant, and CA --outdated policy or not-- had no legal grounds to prevent you from using it. Charging you change fees was an added slap in the face.
I agree with Andre that getting written clarification from Beijing border control would be a great place to start. I'm guessing that you could secure such documentation for around $100 (I.e. paying for the guanxi necessary to get you something really official/indisputable). You might want to consider contacting the OP in order to share this cost.
I think chasing down iata is a waste of time in general BUT they may well be able to connect you with someone who can help wrt the aforementioned documentation (I.e. whoever feeds them relevant data).
In closing, I'd like to reiterate my strong support in your fight. If you play your cards right, I'm confident that you WILL prevail, which means you'll get some financial compensation. More importantly, you'll be doing everyone else a service if you force CA's hand on this. Good luck!
You're probably right in that it may well be a long battle with Air China. I'm not so sure that hiring a lawyer will be worth it, though. We're talking roughly €200 in re-booking fees.
Jan 29, 2016, 5:01 am
#59
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 42,040
I agree that engaging an attorney is probably overkill.
That having been said, we are pulling for you to win this battle for the sake of everyone else who faces similar problems.
Jan 29, 2016, 4:34 pm
#60
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 247
Since CA has a clearly stated policy of a strict 72 hour limit between scheduled arrival and departure for TWOV, I would certainly not book an itinerary with them that did not comply.
In addition, so far at least, no one in this forum has been able to produce any official document describing the "72+" hour rule... So up to 72 hours between flights you should be fine; anything beyond that and you're on thin ice if the airline you're flying with doesn't publicize that rule on its website.