The email was from below:

Visa and Passport Office
Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles
Add: 3rd Floor, 500 shatto place Los Angeles ,CA,90020
Tel: 213-201-1765
Fax: 213-380-0372
Office Hour: 9:00-14:00, Monday to Friday (Holidays excluded)

Well put, (and welcome to FT!) but, I would take tiny exception with "So really everyone is "right" -- -not- out of some need to be right personally here, rather, I'd say it only matters if the check-in agent is right-- and certainly it sounds like your take is, they are (to not allow the ticket as-is.)

I would have gotten on the phone with AA and booked a PVG-HKG award flight just to get on your flight and then cancel it once you clear customs/immigration at PVG.

As someone who works with a lot of government actions, I would emphasize that governments are big and full of people who say a lot of things. Having something in writing from a government employee does not supersede the actual law/regulation. I've seen government employees tell people in writing dozens of things are totally fine only to find out it was, in fact, not okay.

Again - it's just an email.

I, too, am told that such letter is completely irrelevant.Or, if one disagrees with that, 100% irrelevant to an check-in agent who is to be guided by only by TIMATIC

So your opinion is that no one is right. :p

Written communications of any kind from a diplomatic official in most instances are considered pretty rock-solid. However, the airline agent has the final say over whether or not to accept that as evidence of permission to travel.

I would have gotten visa's.

Let me make this clearer. I've done TWOV about 10 times going LAX/SFO-PEK-KUL or LAX/SFO-PEK-SIN. Some airlines will interpret the rules differently, in my cases PEK was always a transit point that I choose to stay for 48 hours or so for meetings and avoided a Chinese Visa. I've also attempted LAX-HKG-PEK-SFO and CX denied the TWOV waiver - had CX then accept if I re-issue the UA PEK-SFO segment to SAME day connect they would allow me to continue. Did that, they confirmed, and I flew to PEK. Had my OLD itin ready for Chinese immigration and they let me in TWOV. Switched my UA flight back to 48 hours later. Again I was prepared to NOT be let in and just transit back home.

Generally on TWOV with most Airlines I've seen the burden to be you are continuing onwards and spending MORE than 48 hours in the other country. There is a grey area though on the CX/UA routing I did. Chinese immigration may be more lax in reality but the Air carriers are more cautious. In the case of my CX HKG stop it was just that a stopover - OK I left the airport for 7 hours for meetings but it was a stopover - out of LAX they didn't catch it and I just mentioned TWOV. In HKG I was questioned on it before boarding and did the switch quick on the UA flight as they were about to move me to HKG-SFO on CX (Ticket was issued by CX). Basically had the same as the OP but it was the OUTBOUND I did the other country connect.

Thanks, and very true. Hence the quotation marks.

Ultimately China needs to clarify the rule. If they don't care make it clear in the regulation. As is it is dreadfully vague and as stated requires the agent to identify China as a transit location. As you note numerous times above - that's a tall order for a lot of people when common sense clearly shows China is the destination.

The ambassador? Sure.

Front line embassy staff? I'd quibble since I've seen that crumble in the past.

The only point I was making was that coming from the embassy, one has to assume it is an informed opinion rather than a document that would allow boarding.

What else could I have done? I booked the itinerary through AA reservation. Asked if the TWOV would work, Was told yes by AA CS. I confirmed through contact with Chinese Consulate via email. Was denied boarding at airport.

I couldn't and can't put it any better than that. ^

No argument at all, always appreciate your input.

Ditto :)

Fair enough. And I agree, no matter how technically correct one may be (which is of course, the best kind of correct) in the long run it's easiest to just get the visa. The only reason I didn't is because my passport expires later this year (so less than 11 months validity which is required for a 10 year visa) and not being able to go on the trip was of minimal impact if things didn't work out.

I would encourage anyone else just to get the visa to prevent any issues (and am planning on getting my own as soon as I renew my passport next week).

I'm not saying that the airline has to accept it, only that such written communications aren't thrown around willy-nilly. "Front line embassy staff" are fully empowered diplomatic officials, not low-level customer service reps.

Conversely, the OP could have a signed letter from the Premier of China himself and AA staff wouldn't be required to allow him to board (nor would they have the capacity to verify it in the first place).

So 144 hours in China is transit and 16 or so hours in NRT is destination? How many hours would qualify for destination in your eyes?

Even if you did all that you could have done (and honestly it seems like you did!), it doesn't change the fact that the policy is vague and poorly enforced. Sometimes it's not anything you did, you just get swept up in the current.

You should ask China to clarify their policy. Until they do we're all just tilting at windmills. ;)

But would it not be the case that as long as NRT was an actual stop on the return ticket, rather than a transit, that the length of said stop would probably be of no relevance?

My CX experience I posted above tells me that the carrier wants to see the other stop being more than 2 days.

They're diplomats but there is a power structure. You can be a diplomat and still be pushing paperwork and cutting your teeth. Not mention many embassies employ non-diplomatic staff for many clerical activities like filing paper work and .... replying to communications. :p

As for your second part - you're correct. Which is why at the end of the day the email doesn't matter at all. So you're just circling back to my initial point - the email is just an email.

24 hours

A transit is a stop of < 24 hours and a stopover is anything longer

On paper tickets this would have been shown as an X for transit rather than O for stopover/destination

From IATA tariff definitions

Stopover "When a passenger arrives at an intermediate point and is scheduled to depart later than 24 hours after arrival (local time).

The stop at the destination in China was not a transit, but the ticketed destination

Even where continuing on to a 3rd country, a stop of > 24 hours in China is a stopover as far as ticketing goes, just that China chooses to call the waiver a transit

Does anybody have a direct email contact I can reach out to at AA for assistance? I have submitted via the contact link on website.

That more or less sums it up.

For the time being, China's policy may or may not have a loophole. AA's agents are inconsistent in allowing passengers to use this loophole that may or may not exist. If not, you may have to change your ticket or be denied boarding, and AA may or may not compensate you if this happens. It's the very definition of buyer beware, at this point. :)

But best of luck to the OP getting a refund, seriously.

That's at odds with China's definitions of "transit" which include periods of 24 hours, 72 hours or 144 hours, as applicable.

Isn't that one of the functions of an embassy? Isn't an embassy an agent of the government within a foreign country to answer such questions?

If you clear immigration at NRT and have a quick meeting, sleep for 5 hours, then take the next flight back to the US - that fits both practice and policy as I tried to outline before.

But that's all related to the vagueness of the current policy.

Thank You!

No - it is simply at odd with the name given to the waiver

Definitely, and they definitely answered the question. The question is really whether they answered it correctly and even further, if they did answer it correctly, whether it matters considering the logistics of how the policy is worded and enforced.

Again - confirmation in writing from an Embassy official would almost certainly be sufficient to allow the OP entry into China if there were any dispute. AA doesn't have to accept this as evidence, however.

Nothing I said in your quoted portion conflicts with what you said here. ;)

Or governments and airlines can have different definitions of the same word.

This.

Thats the best way to get in touch. Please do let us know how it shapes out.

Good Luck.

No, it does not. Only in Shanghai and Beijing the Chinese immigration is managed by local police force, and other parts of China the immigration is managed by armed force. Neither has anything to do with China Foreign Ministry, which manages the embassy overseas. And neither will recognise any letters from any Embassy as the evidence of entry.

Chinese immigration system is no concern of any China embassy. Obviously China Embassies can issue visas accordingly. But a visa alone does not mean you will be allowed into China (just like in any countries).

If you want to enter China with a letter, such letter must be headed with China foreign ministry with formal wording and stamps, and also had been sent to the arrival port prior your arrival. Not only that, the invited party must obtain a visa on arrival using this letter.

In OP's case, a one way ticket LAX - PVG -TYO would do the trick with another one way TYO -LAX. Or simply stay overnight in TYO would help too.

OP must obtain a formal explanation from Shanghai Pudong Airport Immigration office instead of China Embassy in the US. It will be his entry port who can decide whether he is eligible or not. China Embassy does not deal with 144 hours TWOV issues, they might answer some questions in their ability and understanding, but does not carry any legal weight.

Another point to be made is that either 72 or 144 hours TWOV is a LOCAL legislation as the procurement is that local government and immigration bureau comes up with proposals and then get approval from central government. It is not a uniform thing national wide. Thus the final explanation on criteria and entry requirement is within the local immigration bureau rather than China Embassy. We are talking about apple and orange here.

Reasonable view of reality, in my prior post my theoretical non standard TWOV through PEK was allowed in PEK even though CX thought it wasn't. I expected it not to be. Been to China enough over the last 20 years to know generally things do work out if you have an error on a Visa/immigration, etc but be prepared to turn back around (in my case continue onward to SFO on UA) - in prior times I've been ready to back track to HKG if needed if it doesn't work the way it was intended.

My general advice to people going to China is ALWAYS get a proper visa, barring that make sure you are stopping over and spending time elsewhere if doing TWOV.

I think the other mistake was to book the whole family on a marginal ticket and not be there at least 3 hours before the flight. When I did my TWOV I was there 3 hours early, just in case, and I had a nested ticket with an overnight in S. Korea (much safer situation). I can see how you may have felt reassured by two sources, but still, this had anxiety written over it.

That is very true.

I recommend OP to check the website of:
http://www.sh-immigration.gov.cn/

Certainly not in many, if not most, cases. Many Embassy front line employees are not under diplomatic cover and are often nationals of the country the embassy is located in. And diplomatic cover itself does not assure that they are always correctly interpreting the regulations of the country they work for.

Whether a 72 or 144 hour "transit" to another country where one is truly transiting less than at least the time the airline considers a stopover may well be a point of contention with airline employees, and the deep material behind the regulation we are able to read may also disambiguate what is another transit or legitimate destination out of the US and it's territories for China TWOV.

In this case the OP will probably get the money back from AA, but took a risk. A genuine ticket via PVG / SHA to NRT, KUL, HKG etc. as a destination would have eliminated the risk of being significantly inconvenienced.