You are right. The way that the word transit is interpreted in TWOV leaves no room for any additional interpretations.

One formula is sufficient modulus some constraints on the period between inbound and outbound:

inbound_segment.origin != outbound_segment.destination ==> visa_free=true.

inbound_segment: the initial flight segment into China
outbound_segment: the next flight segment out of China that you'll be taking.

I like this way of interpreting the word transit. It's simple enough for easy formalization. I don't see why this logic couldn't be introduced into TIMATIC :)

I believe Jon is pointing out that AA views its actions as acceptable and that there is a risk that AA will continue with this interpretation. Travelers that want to make sure they are safe can get a visa or perhaps a refundable ticket to another country.

Whether AA is correctly interpreting China's requirements is a separate question, as is whether this behavior is acceptable. From what I can tell, no knowledgeable person agrees with AA's interpretation in this case.

There are many recommendations that one renew a passport early or get a visa in order to travel to certain countries, even when not required, in order to avoid this sort of nonsense.

Completely correct, thank you for referencing/including the context of my remarks.

I can virtually *guarantee* that there will continue to be this issue-- be it very rare, occasionally, etc for the foreseeable future.

This issue could have easily been rectified. Reimburse passenger for mistake.

I expect that still is a possibility/probability as it has been in previous cases.

Sadly, I agree with you on this point. If history is any indicator of the future, AA is likely to make the OP whole, but on the condition that he executes an NDA. This is presumably cheaper for them than investing in training.

We've seen many cases of this nature in the TWOV thread, and OPs reliably go dark shortly after bringing the airlines to task.:(

I'd personally be very surprised if any NDA was required-- has anyone historically claimed that? They don't even do that in agreements made with AA corp security, so, as sensible as it may seem, is that something that's been posited before specifically regarding AA?

That alone is worth a couple hundred AAdvantage miles on top of your out of pocket expenses.:p

Extra free miles...throw the dog a bone..it stops the barking.

Here's one example (that I found via Google, btw):
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/ameri...ade-space.html

That was a very, very different and highly unique situation-- nothing whatsoever to do with this subject, obviously-- there was actual DOT involvement-- huge difference from a routine compensation arrangement with AA CR (or even a routine AA corp security resolution.) No NDAs.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/28200694-post156.html

There's no need for you to remind me of a post I made less than 2 hours ago.:D I am not inclined to discuss specific NDA situations I'm aware of because my doing so would demonstrate that silence was broken by the recipients. So, instead, I resorted to Google. While fake bookings and employee negligence are different subjects, I'm not sure how you could conclude either is more or less NDA worthy.

Easily-- because I know what I'm talking about.

Ask around :)

AA made a big mistake here. 100% to blame. If AA can't operate without understanding TWOV (or better said, have it's staff understand it) then China should revoke them flight rights.

The percentage of denied flyers making a claim for wrongful denied boarding related to China TWOV, is probably less than 5%. The avg payout is probably next to nothing... From a profit motive...waste of money to provide additional training to employees.