irishguy28

that is, indeed, an issue. But also bear in mind - to be "transiting", one really should have a single ticket. "Self connecting" on separate tickets will almost never be recognised for immigration/accounting/statistical purposes as making you a transit passenger.

(Transit passengers, whether they can stay airside or not, are often taxed/charged differently to arriving and to departing passengers. Most airports will tax/charge transit passengers much less than they do for arriving and departing passengers. By buying separate tickets, you are in effect making yourself both an arriving passenger, and a departing passenger, at that "connection" airport, rather than being a "transit" passenger in the strict sense of the word).

Here are the differences in charges for departing and "transit-direct" (i.e. transit, in the strict sense of the word) passengers at AMS:

lolstebbo

I get where you're coming from, but the way the PRC treats TWOV puts "transiting" in a different context; the 72-hour and 144-hour TWOV options are clearly intended to encourage stopovers, and you get taxed accordingly even if your single ticket has a layover that exceeds a certain duration of time anyway.

irishguy28

The idea there, though, is that you arrive in on, and depart 12/24/48/72/144 hours later on the same airline/ticket. It's a stopover in the middle of a single ticket - not a stopover between separate tickets.

nanyang

I have only used TWOV in PRC on separate tickets (on different airlines).

lolstebbo

Same here; I flew into SHA on MU/FM and left from PVG on CI 70 hours later. Separate tickets. It's absolutely permitted; you just need proof that you're leaving for a different country/locale within the permitted time window from the same region/airport.

exwannabe

Yes, but the 24 hour rule reads different. It asserts the pax must be a "direct transit", while the 72/144 do not have this language (and only require a forward ticket)..

And the airport in question has no 72/144. So "direct transit" restriction applies with any plain reading of the rules.

A different problem arises on the 72/144 tickets. Namely the written PROC rule does not align with IATA language. The PROC says you need an outbout flight to a different destination, IATA does not consider a transit point a destination. This has been the cause of many noted "fails" here. If the PROC wants to encourage stops, they should work with IATA to clean up the issue.

gengar

Nevertheless, it is not a tenable stance for airlines to incorrectly deny pax travel and not compensate when it happens, especially when the purpose of such denial is CYA for financial benefit.


Undoubtedly OP used a colloquialism, but let me know when any citizen of Canada, Mexico, Brazil, or Argentina will respond "American" when asked what their citizenship is.

lolstebbo

SZX doesn't, according to any official documentation, have 24 hour, either (nor does it even offer facilities for direct transit according to their own website), so in the end it's still moot: per published rules, OP would have needed a transit visa.

PRC marching to the beat of their own drummer isn't really anything new, either hahaha

exwannabe

He said "American"

Look it up in any dictionary. It can mean of the USA, or of the American continents.

Unfortunately ambiguous, but certainly proper language. And never confused in the real world.

And Canadians, Mexicans and Brazilians can not answer American when asked their citizenship (as the contents do not have citizens), so there is no ambiguity at all in this context.

And even using America as the name of the country is proper. If you asked somebody from Mexico where they are from, would you expect them to say "United Mexican States"? The short name is still proper.

nacho

When we arrived PEK back in May, I saw that all those have direct transit were guided to another channel that's doesn't require immigration. IF you want to enter China then there's a queue for 24/72 hours.

Mr got full visa as he was there for work, the kids used the 72 hours visa free to get in. It was an ordeal and took us 2 hours to get it done.

They went to Hong Kong within 72 hours (UM with CX), on the way back the idiot at HKG Check-in messed up with TWOV and 72 hours transit visa - I wrote very clearly on their UM document that they need to get a 72 hours visa when they returned to PEK. CX let my kids on without any documentation to a flight to PEK and that led to another ordeal.

warakorn

Honestly, buying sth. like Air Asia KUL-SZX and Xiamen Airlines SZX-SEA is a desaster about to happen. I would strongly encourage against doing that - not only because of the visa situation.

exwannabe

Sorry for going off-topic here, but does this imply issues with Xiamen also, or do you just mean the entire ITN?

Asking because I have seen some very good TPAC deals on them up front (I know their C is old school, but still a lot better than in the back of a plane).

lolstebbo

Transiting between two airlines in an airport that isn't designed to accommodate direct transit, especially when the first flight is on an LCC, is just not a good idea by any means.

IIRC PEK and PVG are the only two airports that have direct transit corridors.

TWOV is very YMMV; mine took me about half an hour to process.

nacho

Last time they mixed the 24h and 72h lines into 1, I don't know which one you applied but it's an ordeal for a 72h one. There was a staff asking everyone in the queue whether they are doing 24h/72h visa (apparently there's a different in the procedure and requirement). It's a lot faster to get the 24h ones as I saw how they processed it while waiting in line.

They gave me forms to fill in after checking all the paperwork including hard copy documentation for the kids' onward flight to HKG (I have everything prepared). Then they told me to underline the flight number and the date on the ticket , and then they told me to write down the hotel name and hotel telephone number on each of their arrival card.

They told this crap to every passenger applying the visa instead of putting it up on a board and have the forms available. After waiting for an hour in line it was finally our turn, someone verified the information (took another 30 minutes because they were doing several applications at once) and then another person took my children's documentations to some secret place for 30 minutes.

Our bags were at lost and found because everyone collected their bags and left by the time we were at the luggage carousel.

It's not something I'll ever do again. Most of these procedures are result of extreme bureaucracy.

lolstebbo

haha Ah. I was going for a 72hr one, but I was also flying into SHA; your situation might be more common at PVG and PEK.