Funny thing about Flyertalk is that anyone can post whatever they want, whether or not they know anything about the subject.

China allows certain passengers to visit certain cities in China without obtaining a visa. In some cases, these visits can extend up to six days (144 hours). Over the years, the duration of these visa-free visits has been extended.

The requirements for these visa-free visits are not extensive. Here's the requirements directly from China:

Let's review: Passport? Check. Onward ticket to third country (not the one from which the passenger just arrived)? Check.

If the agent at LAX (or any other airport) enters PVG as the "destination," then they will never get the correct result when the passenger otherwise complies with the TWOV rules.

Consider two sample itineraries:

The first is LAX-PVG-NRT-LAX where the PVG-NRT flight departs 140 hours after arrival at PVG and the NRT-LAX flight departs 2 hours after arrival at NRT. Several Flyertalkers have posted that the above itinerary does not comply because, using commonly accepted travel industry meanings for words like "transit," they conclude that PVG is the "destination" and the only transit occurs at NRT. Thus, they conclude, a visa for China is required. Some AA agents agree with them.

The second itinerary is LAX-PVG-NRT-LAX where the PVG-NRT flight departs 140 hours after arrival at PVG and the NRT-LAX flight departs 24.5 hours after arrival at NRT. Now that the passenger has a stopover at NRT, is the itinerary magically converted into a compliant itinerary or must the passenger remain in Tokyo longer than one day? Still looks like Shanghai was the destination and Tokyo is just a long transit (but, technically, a stopover). So how many days in Tokyo are required to convince the agents that PVG really is a "transit" so they'll enter the information correctly in Timatic? One day? Two? Three or more?

China obviously makes no distinction between the two. China has decided that six day stopovers in Shanghai are to be treated as a "transit" even though we are all conditioned to treat a six day visit to Shanghai as anything but a "transit."

Update: AA's Response paraphrased to accompany pertinent info for the thread

Documentation requirements for international travel can change frequently -- sometimes with little advance notice. It is therefore our policy -- and that of most other airlines -- that documentation requirements are the full responsibility of the traveler who should verify with the Consulate prior to departure.

Our personnel are trained to verify pertinent entry and exit regulations by the use of a sophisticated data base which we subscribe to and provides us with up-to-date information on the requirements and regulations for nearly 200 countries. Since we are subject to substantial government fines for transporting customers without proper documentation, we use this data base to make decisions about whether or not to accept customers for travel based on the documentation in their possession at the time of departure. Nonetheless, since there are many changes and a limitless number of variables, we do not accept responsibility for expenses, delays, reroutings or other losses associated to international documentation. I apologize for the confusion and aggravation you experienced, and the resulting delay of your family's travel.

Your comments have been documented and made available to our Executive Management team, regarding the service problems that you encountered. We are moving forward with an internal investigation looking into the issue at hand. We do apologize once again for the unfortunate circumstances and assure you it will be handled internally. Your thoughts matter to us and can help drive change.



I was offered a refund of the Main Cabin Extra fees I paid along with an e-voucher of $300 for each passenger to be used on a future flight.

Thoughts or suggestions on how to proceed?

You could try telling them "the China TWOV experts on on flyertalk told me I'd be getting much, much more than that" and see how that goes.

That's rude. Thanks

My sarcasm was not at all aimed at you-- I kinda thought (very wrongly, as it turns out,) that that was obvious in this context-- but, I'll try again as I obviously "missed"-- big time-- on that one. :)

You have very few options. You can (and should,) of course, write back and ask for a phone call to discuss the matter further and/or let them know in polite but uncertain terms that the offer is -not- sufficient. My personal estimation of getting substantively more out of them in so doing is very, very low. The ancillary costs on your part will never be reimbursed, IMO.

Other option is to sue in small claims. It works. But, I'd leave it to a friendly lawyer (an -actual- lawyer, not one who plays one here on FT,) to advise you on that and it's chances of success (success in this case almost certainly meaning a settlement a day or 2 before the court date.)

IMHO-- or at least off the top of my head-- there are no other real productive avenues with AA.

It seems like someone at AA has actually read your communication and provided a thoughtful response. They also have offered you vouchers that cover at least some of the additional expense you incurred with buying a ticket to Japan.

If the concern here is about that the information in the Timatic database is unclear or at least capable of being read in a way that requires a ticket to Japan, as opposed to a ticket returning to the US with an initial connection in Japan, why not contact Timatic to see if you can get the change you want for the benefit of future travelers. Timatic is administered by IATA. I'm not sure whether you're better off to contact IATA in Montreal where they are headquartered or contacting IATA's regional office for Asia since they are ultimately the ones who will need to get the approval from the Chinese government that TWOV visas are available to someone when their next flight is to a third country, i.e., NRT, even though the ticket itself is to LAX.

What's your total out of pocket expense?

AA didn't understood (or doesn't care) at all. 100% their fault, they need to take responsibility for their fault. They clearly don't.

TIMATIC rules are 100% clear. OP was compliant with them. I don't know why you defend AA yourself like this when it's perfectly clear that they're to blame 100% for what happened here.

$2140 for the fare difference

The incidental costs were just over $800. I tend to agree with JonNYC that those have basically no chance of recovery.

The eVouchers are a nice gesture but wont pay my next CC statement lol

My best bet will be small claims court. I have a good argument. I did respond nicely to AA stating that I did indeed have guidance from the Chinese Consulate in LA.

Look, I understand the point from those here who have used the TWOV process regarding the practical application of TWOV -- which I presume is probably .000000001 percent of the population who have used or attempted to use it. They don't, however, have a corner on dealing with the Chinese government and shifting interpretations of vague language.

Setting all that aside to apply the language of Timatic (which is similar to that put out by the Shanghai immigration folks), to qualify for a TWOV, OP needed a ticket to a third country -- not a onward flight, not a connection -- a ticket.

OP did not have a ticket to a third country -- he had a ticket to LAX, with a connection in Japan.

If the language in Timatic is 100 percent clear, then why do so many airlines raise the same issues that the agent did at LAX?

What's the value of the main cabin extra fees?
2140 +800 = 2940 - refund main cabin fees
should equal balance owed.


"I was offered a refund of the Main Cabin Extra fees I paid along with an e-voucher of $300 for each passenger to be used on a future flight."

You don't need an actual ticket. A reservation placed on hold will work. In fact that it's what I used to get mine. I placed an award on hold for some random dates and then filed out the visa application using those dates. Never ticketed the reservation and in fact never flew on those dates to China. In fact my first trip to China using the visa was three months before those dates.

Where on earth does this idea come from that anyone is relying on a vague interpretation of TWOV? If anything, the idea that "ticket to a third country" is defined as a separate ticket to a third country is the interpretation that has no basis in reality.

He had a ticket to a third country. Every flight you take requires a ticket. You're trying to apply fare logic to a non-fare situation. Agents in the US (and yes it seems only to be the US) seem to fall for the same trap. They're applying fare logic to a non-fare situation.

Quite simply the rules say a confirmed ticket to a third country/region. They do not say a confirmed ticket who's final destination is in a third country.