Apr 25, 2017, 6:09 am
Last edit by: JDiver
AA Ground Staff May Deny Boarding for China Transit Without Visa Issues
This thread is ONLY for discussion of American Airlines' ground staff dealing with Chinese TWOV issues. For further information, see:
FlyerTalk Forums > Destinations > Asia > China Forum
China Visa / Visas Master Thread (all you need to know)
and / or
China 24, 72, and 144 hour Transit Without Visa ("TWOV") rules master thread
The issue: though Chinese immigration authorities seem disposed to allow transit without visa for passengers going on to flights with connections in non-China, non-origin destinations, e.g. LAX-PVG <permitted TWOV> PVG-NRT-LAX, AA ground staff have denied boarding to passengers for the XXX-China leg.
Even if such a passenger were to secure alternate arrangements or reimbursement, there is still sure to be considerable inconvenience. Until AA informs ground staff such travel complies with China TWOV rules, purchasing such an itinerary currently entails some degree of risk, as evidenced in the following thread.
AA generally uses IATA Timatic to verify boarding eligibility. Link to Timatic Web provided courtesy of United Airlines; this form provides information on entry requirements, not departure policies as might be administered by any airline.
144 TWOV China- AA Issues/Questions
Apr 22, 2017, 10:17 pm
#421
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,405
C17PSGR - your suggested role-play doesn't address the embassy advice, or that the agent had other options including calling Shanghai Immigration.
At each stage of your dialogue there was a wholly reasonable alternative for the agent to pursue.
At each stage of your dialogue there was a wholly reasonable alternative for the agent to pursue.
Apr 22, 2017, 10:25 pm
#422
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
How many of those do you think are covered in classroom training for AA agents? Any? Maybe one of the AA employees her can chime in.
Apr 22, 2017, 10:44 pm
#423
Join Date: Nov 2010
Programs: AA EXP (owe), BA Silver (ows), AB Silver (owr), WN A+/CP, IHG Spire AMB, Avis First
Posts: 1,414
Dear op,
if you end up filing in civil (not small claims) please PM me I'd be happy to file an amicus brief. But that's also more likely to get AA's attention.
if you end up filing in civil (not small claims) please PM me I'd be happy to file an amicus brief. But that's also more likely to get AA's attention.
Apr 22, 2017, 10:52 pm
#424
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 42,031
Agent: Sir, our system shows that individuals traveling from LA to PVG and back require a visa.
Pax: I get that, can you put Japan into the system rather than PVG. That way, it will show I qualify for TWOV.
Agent: But sir, you're not going to Japan, you're going to PVG.
Pax: Right, but I'm flying to Japan after PVG, and if you use that as the destination then it will show I don't need a visa.
Agent: Sir, you're traveling to PVG, spending a few days there, then heading straight back to the US with a short connection in Japan. I can't enter Japan as your destination -- that's just not true.
Pax: Look, I've heard that Chinese immigration only cares that I'm flying back through Japan and doesn't care where my final destination.
Agent: Sir, we have to work with official rules. This is a system with a international database compiled by the IATA. It was compiled with input from national immigration authorities from all over the world. I can't just enter Japan as a destination to avoid the visa requirement -- you're asking me to do something that's not true.
***
Pax: I get that, can you put Japan into the system rather than PVG. That way, it will show I qualify for TWOV.
Agent: But sir, you're not going to Japan, you're going to PVG.
Pax: Right, but I'm flying to Japan after PVG, and if you use that as the destination then it will show I don't need a visa.
Agent: Sir, you're traveling to PVG, spending a few days there, then heading straight back to the US with a short connection in Japan. I can't enter Japan as your destination -- that's just not true.
Pax: Look, I've heard that Chinese immigration only cares that I'm flying back through Japan and doesn't care where my final destination.
Agent: Sir, we have to work with official rules. This is a system with a international database compiled by the IATA. It was compiled with input from national immigration authorities from all over the world. I can't just enter Japan as a destination to avoid the visa requirement -- you're asking me to do something that's not true.
***
Apr 22, 2017, 10:56 pm
#425
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: 100,404
Bold added:
Having a "real" stopover doesn't necessarily solve the problem of airlines not treating TWOV correctly. I had a stopover over 48 hours and it still required three hours of arguing with DL.
In fact, I almost was forced to make a reservation (which would have been nonrefundable) at an airport hotel. However, PVG has no airside airport hotels or airside transit hotels, so this just would have meant paying for a duplicate last minute reservation in a place I didn't want to stay. In this case, DL said that they were worried that I wouldn't be allowed to leave the airport and would be forced to sleep on the airport floor for two nights. Note that having a reservation in aaa airport hotel would have had no effect on whether I could leave the airport or would be sleeping on the airport floor. Moreover, so what? It is not the business of DL where I sleep in Shanghai and I'm far too beyond unaccompanied minor eligibility to need loco parentis treatment from DL.
Agent: Sir, our system shows that individuals traveling from LA to PVG and back require a visa.
Pax: I get that, can you put Japan into the system rather than PVG. That way, it will show I qualify for TWOV.
Agent: But sir, you're not going to Japan, you're going to PVG.
Pax: Right, but I'm flying to Japan after PVG, and if you use that as the destination then it will show I don't need a visa.
Agent: Sir, you're traveling to PVG, spending a few days there, then heading straight back to the US with a short connection in Japan. I can't enter Japan as your destination -- that's just not true.
Pax: Look, I've heard that Chinese immigration only cares that I'm flying back through Japan and doesn't care where my final destination.
Agent: Sir, we have to work with official rules. This is a system with a international database compiled by the IATA. It was compiled with input from national immigration authorities from all over the world. I can't just enter Japan as a destination to avoid the visa requirement -- you're asking me to do something that's not true.
***
I realize that those over from the China TWOV thread feel very strongly about this but that's what you're asking the agent to do -- and what you're suggesting travelers should pressure the agent to do. Most objective people will recognize this.
I'm all for helping OP making the best of this unfortunate situation but it seems to me that these are the relevant points:
1. Visas are a safer way of guaranteeing travel to China.
2. If you want to use the TWOV rather than a visa, then have an actual and real stopover in a third country. The kind where an agent whether from AA, AC, BA, DL, UA won't question using that as a destination. Such as going to PVG for a few days, then to SIN for a few days.
3. Those over in the China forum strongly advocate TWOV -- but an objective person would acknowledge there are occasionally problems with the airlines and cruise lines agreeing with their interpretation. Thus, understand that using TWOV without a real stopover has some risk that you need to assume. An objective person would also recognize that there is a difference between TWOV and a short term visitors visa. As someone in another thread noted: "Are there any other situations in the World where you can avoid getting a visa because of where you changed planes on your way there?"
4. Chinese immigration folks don't mess around. You might read this for a couple of NZ students who thought they would use TWOV and didn't realize they had to clear immigration in a non-TWOV city and couldn't actually get to PEK. Note that they blamed the airline for not telling them that TWOV wouldn't work -- and their trip was an obvious transit point between Turkey and NZ. https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/...s-journey-hell
5. The source of this problem is not AA or DL or the airlines. If someone feels strongly about this, they should reach out to IATA or somehow find the Chinese representative to the IATA and ask them to work with the IATA.
Pax: I get that, can you put Japan into the system rather than PVG. That way, it will show I qualify for TWOV.
Agent: But sir, you're not going to Japan, you're going to PVG.
Pax: Right, but I'm flying to Japan after PVG, and if you use that as the destination then it will show I don't need a visa.
Agent: Sir, you're traveling to PVG, spending a few days there, then heading straight back to the US with a short connection in Japan. I can't enter Japan as your destination -- that's just not true.
Pax: Look, I've heard that Chinese immigration only cares that I'm flying back through Japan and doesn't care where my final destination.
Agent: Sir, we have to work with official rules. This is a system with a international database compiled by the IATA. It was compiled with input from national immigration authorities from all over the world. I can't just enter Japan as a destination to avoid the visa requirement -- you're asking me to do something that's not true.
***
I realize that those over from the China TWOV thread feel very strongly about this but that's what you're asking the agent to do -- and what you're suggesting travelers should pressure the agent to do. Most objective people will recognize this.
I'm all for helping OP making the best of this unfortunate situation but it seems to me that these are the relevant points:
1. Visas are a safer way of guaranteeing travel to China.
2. If you want to use the TWOV rather than a visa, then have an actual and real stopover in a third country. The kind where an agent whether from AA, AC, BA, DL, UA won't question using that as a destination. Such as going to PVG for a few days, then to SIN for a few days.
3. Those over in the China forum strongly advocate TWOV -- but an objective person would acknowledge there are occasionally problems with the airlines and cruise lines agreeing with their interpretation. Thus, understand that using TWOV without a real stopover has some risk that you need to assume. An objective person would also recognize that there is a difference between TWOV and a short term visitors visa. As someone in another thread noted: "Are there any other situations in the World where you can avoid getting a visa because of where you changed planes on your way there?"
4. Chinese immigration folks don't mess around. You might read this for a couple of NZ students who thought they would use TWOV and didn't realize they had to clear immigration in a non-TWOV city and couldn't actually get to PEK. Note that they blamed the airline for not telling them that TWOV wouldn't work -- and their trip was an obvious transit point between Turkey and NZ. https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/...s-journey-hell
5. The source of this problem is not AA or DL or the airlines. If someone feels strongly about this, they should reach out to IATA or somehow find the Chinese representative to the IATA and ask them to work with the IATA.
In fact, I almost was forced to make a reservation (which would have been nonrefundable) at an airport hotel. However, PVG has no airside airport hotels or airside transit hotels, so this just would have meant paying for a duplicate last minute reservation in a place I didn't want to stay. In this case, DL said that they were worried that I wouldn't be allowed to leave the airport and would be forced to sleep on the airport floor for two nights. Note that having a reservation in aaa airport hotel would have had no effect on whether I could leave the airport or would be sleeping on the airport floor. Moreover, so what? It is not the business of DL where I sleep in Shanghai and I'm far too beyond unaccompanied minor eligibility to need loco parentis treatment from DL.
Apr 22, 2017, 11:13 pm
#426
Ambassador: China
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Malibu Inferno Ground Zero
Programs: UA AA CO
Posts: 4,836
Appeal
A small claims appeal is a "trial de novo" or "new trial." This means that the case is decided by a new judge from the beginning so you have to present your case all over again. Because this case is in the civil division of the superior court (and NOT in small claims court), you (and the other side) are allowed to bring a lawyer to represent you in the new trial.
First Trial
Corporation or other legal entity — A corporation or other legal entity (that is not a natural person) can be represented by a regular employee, an officer, or a director; a partnership can be represented by a partner or regular employee of the partnership. The representative may not be an attorney or person whose only job is to represent the party in small claims court. An attorney may appear to represent a law firms as long as that attorney is a general partner of the law firm or is an officer of the corporation. However, in both instances, all the other members of the partnership and all the other officers of the corporations have to be attorneys as well.
Last edited by anacapamalibu; Apr 22, 2017 at 11:24 pm
Apr 22, 2017, 11:36 pm
#427
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 42,031
@MSPeconomist Are you permitted to disclose the details of your settlement with Delta from your 2015 TWOV case?
Apr 23, 2017, 12:24 am
#428
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 42,031
4. Chinese immigration folks don't mess around. You might read this for a couple of NZ students who thought they would use TWOV and didn't realize they had to clear immigration in a non-TWOV city and couldn't actually get to PEK. Note that they blamed the airline for not telling them that TWOV wouldn't work -- and their trip was an obvious transit point between Turkey and NZ. https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/...s-journey-hell
Apr 23, 2017, 12:29 am
#429
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The Internet
Programs: Alaska Mileage Plan
Posts: 714
Revisit my post history. I'm not on here spamming blog links. I have been on Flyertalk for far longer than I've been blogging. In fact, I don't sell anything on my blog and there are no ads.
I posted a pertinent and well researched article rather than retype it here. Why the hostility, exactly? Is it because you're flat wrong and I called you out?
I posted a pertinent and well researched article rather than retype it here. Why the hostility, exactly? Is it because you're flat wrong and I called you out?
Apr 23, 2017, 12:36 am
#430
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The Internet
Programs: Alaska Mileage Plan
Posts: 714
Actually there is a guarantee and there is no risk.
China has very simple, clear-cut policy for TWOV and it is very consistently applied. There are no gray areas. None.
You have to leave from one country and travel through China to a third country.
That's it.
Your ticket out of China has to be to a country different than the one you came from.
That's all.
There is really nothing more to it than this. Why are so many people trying to make up Chinese laws that don't exist and inventing problems that don't really happen? Show me *one* case where this has ever been an issue, even once. You won't find one.
There are cases where people have tried to use TWOV when they're otherwise inadmissible to China. For example, people with a criminal record in China. Of course, China reserves the right to deny entry in this case, but this is no different from an airline's perspective than transporting a US citizen to, say, the UK without a visa whereupon the UK denies entry based on this. Unless an airline has a good reason to believe you're otherwise inadmissible to China, they have no grounds to deny boarding in this case.
None.
China has very simple, clear-cut policy for TWOV and it is very consistently applied. There are no gray areas. None.
You have to leave from one country and travel through China to a third country.
That's it.
Your ticket out of China has to be to a country different than the one you came from.
That's all.
There is really nothing more to it than this. Why are so many people trying to make up Chinese laws that don't exist and inventing problems that don't really happen? Show me *one* case where this has ever been an issue, even once. You won't find one.
There are cases where people have tried to use TWOV when they're otherwise inadmissible to China. For example, people with a criminal record in China. Of course, China reserves the right to deny entry in this case, but this is no different from an airline's perspective than transporting a US citizen to, say, the UK without a visa whereupon the UK denies entry based on this. Unless an airline has a good reason to believe you're otherwise inadmissible to China, they have no grounds to deny boarding in this case.
None.
I appreciate the fact that those of you who are the moderators for the China forum and who maintain the thread in the China have extensive knowledge of how the TWOV procedures work in the practical sense. Perhaps, its also worth reminding travelers that there is no guarantee that simply connecting in a third country on the way home will allow the traveler to avoid a Chinese visa and they are taking some risk that could be easily addresses by applying for a visa.
This thread, however, focuses on a concern by the OP that AA's following of the language in Timatic, which in turn follows the language put out by the Shanghai immigration authorities, constitutes a customer service problem.
In a practical sense, I'll accept your view that normally Chinese immigration won't really follow the written procedures and require you to have a ticket to a third country but really just care that you have a boarding pass for a third country. I'll even ignore the concept that if the Shanghai or other Chinese immigration authorities really wanted to create a 144 hour tourist visa for certain countries, they could do that.
However, simply accepting how TWOV procedures normally work is risky. If the traveler is flagged, TWOV will not work and Chinese immigration will almost certainly use the language requiring a ticket to a third country as a basis. Moreover, its unreasonable to expect dozens of airlines that fly either directly or indirectly to ignore the language of the rules and simply accept how things work in a practical sense.
For example, lets assume the GA at LAX let the OP and his family fly (and didn't read the language in Timatic carefully -- which is the same used by Shanghai immigration) and that the OP happened to share a name of someone that was flagged leading to the OP being denied admission and having his family sent back to LAX with the stated explanation that his trip didn't meet the language of the TWOV rules. Wouldn't OP have a better case on AA customer service issues by complaining that the GA should have followed the language in Timatic?
This thread, however, focuses on a concern by the OP that AA's following of the language in Timatic, which in turn follows the language put out by the Shanghai immigration authorities, constitutes a customer service problem.
In a practical sense, I'll accept your view that normally Chinese immigration won't really follow the written procedures and require you to have a ticket to a third country but really just care that you have a boarding pass for a third country. I'll even ignore the concept that if the Shanghai or other Chinese immigration authorities really wanted to create a 144 hour tourist visa for certain countries, they could do that.
However, simply accepting how TWOV procedures normally work is risky. If the traveler is flagged, TWOV will not work and Chinese immigration will almost certainly use the language requiring a ticket to a third country as a basis. Moreover, its unreasonable to expect dozens of airlines that fly either directly or indirectly to ignore the language of the rules and simply accept how things work in a practical sense.
For example, lets assume the GA at LAX let the OP and his family fly (and didn't read the language in Timatic carefully -- which is the same used by Shanghai immigration) and that the OP happened to share a name of someone that was flagged leading to the OP being denied admission and having his family sent back to LAX with the stated explanation that his trip didn't meet the language of the TWOV rules. Wouldn't OP have a better case on AA customer service issues by complaining that the GA should have followed the language in Timatic?
Apr 23, 2017, 12:41 am
#431
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The Internet
Programs: Alaska Mileage Plan
Posts: 714
You may have a good case for disputing the original ticket as well with your credit card issuer. You paid for transportation you didn't get.
$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.
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.
Apr 23, 2017, 12:53 am
#432
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: 100,404
In many cases, the ticket is purchased too early for one to be entitled to dispute it through a credit card. IIRC the deadline is 60 days after the closing date of the bill on which the charge appeared, although I believe AmEx tends to be a bit more flexible on this.
Apr 23, 2017, 1:48 am
#433
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: LAS ORD
Programs: AA Pro (mostly B6) OZ♦ (flying BR/UA), BA Silver Hyatt LT, Wynn Black, Cosmo Plat, Mlife Noir
Posts: 5,992
If AA isn't interested in training its front line agents in China TWOV policy, then these alternatives certainly should be covered. There's just no rationale for AA's boarding policy (w.r.t. border control concerns) to differ from the destination's border control policy, and that's why this is a customer service discussion. What happened to the OP should simply never happen.
Apr 23, 2017, 5:51 am
#434
Ambassador: China
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Malibu Inferno Ground Zero
Programs: UA AA CO
Posts: 4,836
In many cases, the ticket is purchased too early for one to be entitled to dispute it through a credit card. IIRC the deadline is 60 days after the closing date of the bill on which the charge appeared, although I believe AmEx tends to be a bit more flexible on this.
Apr 23, 2017, 5:58 am
#435
Ambassador: China
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Malibu Inferno Ground Zero
Programs: UA AA CO
Posts: 4,836