Microwave

Posts that are unnecessarily personalised, ad hominem posts, and posts which beat a necrotic dead horse to death after it's passed away from being fatally flogged have been removed.

Let's bring the temperature on this thread down a few degrees. Going forward, posts are expected to be in a friendly, welcoming tone, and should be directed at the issue and not at other posters. I believe the recent posters on this thread have all made their positions clear; if you've already stated your opinion and you read a post which makes you feel an urge to restate it, don't.

~Moderator

txflyer77

(emphasis mine)

I work for a company that is literally banned in China. Still haven't had any issues entering on TWOV. I still fail to see how this angle has any bearing whatsoever on TWOV. Moreover, it's irrelevant to the airline: they have no way of knowing if someone is on double-secret-probation with China.

rasheed

While the ongoing intent of the China policy discussion is interesting, I wonder if the OP would have done better with AA initally if he had not posted here until after trying to resolve with AA.

We all agree that AA monitors this forum, and there does not seem to be a benefit for the airline to refund the fare differences and create an example of how it handles such situations. It appears that there was enough concern to have consulted with the Chinese consulate before travel and this should be noted to AA at this stage as a reminder.

I think AA should train a few/all ticket counter agents at each gateway airport to better handle visa situations on destinations they fly to so that they can understand these interesting examples. There is nothing wrong with that to be more customer friendly. I know LAX agents at the counter know exactly what to do when they handle people everyday who wrongly assume SYD travel does not require a visa for US citizens. This should not differ for China. Of course, if you get stopped in SAN before your flight to LAX that is a further risk, but I expect the AA team at LAX to be a bit more aware as this is not a new AA metal destination.

This is an unfortunate situation, but I don't see this as China's fault. We should be happy that they don't limit free multiday transit to just local airlines like in other parts of the world.

I am further disappointed that it took two hours for LAX agents to review. There should have been a desk for the agents to contact who are familiar with all the variations of how the third country clause is used and sees such tickets all the time. To me, this should be the focus of the thread on how AA can improve its operations.

Now for those who think the flight to Japan does not qualify as a third country, that is not an AA forum issue. The issue is AA does not have enough expertise or documented notes to handle what China allows. I find it unfair that the AA response appears to back off on being responsible for understanding all of the protocols for international destinations it flies on its own metal.

I am sure there are some who believe there is ambiguity in the TWOV intent, but this is not something written yesterday. If AA feels that it has concerns, it should have clarified the examples like the OP and updated its internal guidelines.

This to me is no different than AA requiring a 6 months valid passport even if destinations do not have as such. If AA prohibits third country where the stay is just for a few hours to qualify, there is nothing that prevents AA from having that rule such that people who wish to travel this way book a different carrier.

Rasheed

fpmurphy

So people are happy to put the Agent's job on the line so that they can bend PVG TWOV rules. Have people no moral compass any longer?

Lets call a spade a spade. The OP was travelling to PVG period for a family vacation and returning to USA via NRT. The OP probably did not even enter Japan proper but merely remained in the sterile area of the airport.

As for letter from the Chinese consulate. We have no idea what facts were presented to the Chinese consulate by the OP. Was the Chinese consulate aware then the OP was not entering Japan but merely switching planes there on their way back to USA?

Regarding SC court, the OP is being quite naive. The written and published TWOV documentation by Shanghai authorities will be accorded a lot more weight that anecdotal evidence by the OP that the defacto rules are different than the dejure rules.

moondog

The OP didn't bend any rules. I can't imagine AA would miss the employee who was responsible for his ordeal.

Tyler2017

China created this program to allow people to spend their time more conveniently and comfortably instead of waiting pointlessly at the airport, when a traveler awaits the next segment of their connecting flight. They never created any loopholes in the first place.

rjw242

Of course they didn't. They just needed to accommodate all those passengers who'd previously spent their 72- to 144-hour connections sitting around in the airport.

C17PSGR

Interesting experience that suggests CX viewed your ticket out of PVG to be one to TPE, thus making you eligible for TWOV, while Chinese immigration looked at your next flight as returning to HKG and deported you.

Obviously CX in HKG must have more experience with Chinese immigration than AA but still had a different interpretation than Chinese immigration. I wonder if this policy is really intended to benefit China Eastern?

moondog

Whether or not they have more experience than AA wrt TWOV, they screwed up in that case.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

Unfortunately CX had some pretty big issues with TWOV. Friends of mine were permitted to board in HKG on a HKG-PVG-HKG(connection)-LAX ticket. Same issue ion arrival at PVG but immigration allowed them to book a non-stop out of PVG to LAX (on the spot, walk up rates).

After that incident CX became a whole lot more judicious with TWOV, and they now spend quite a lot of time processing you at checkin. I would hope they haven't made the same mistake recently.

redrock

WOW such a long thread:

To the OP I think the biggest issue with the itin is that the "destination country=Japan" occurs in the "return leg" of the ticket PVG-NRT-LAX.

The OP did research and had some backup but at the airport 100% of the power is with the airline/check-in agents. So not much recourse if there is a dispute over the interpretation of "transit" "destination" "stopover".

As others mentioned a second ticket (PVG-HKG) would prove that "transit" is happening in PVG.

To the Mods we should put a note in the wiki with warning about same ticket transit/connection/stopover.

To the OP I think you have a strong case to seek refund/compensation so I hope you find a good resolution.

I just did TWOV in PVG and PEK and for families I would definitely recommend a visa if at all possible.

flyerCO

I think they assumed incorrectly that stop didn't mean getting off the plane. Some pictures were shown on a few other websites that during booking all it says is 1 stop, with no detail and in an obscure location, not in the details of the flight.

moondog

It looks like this was the flight (operated until last year):

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchin...t_14146730.htm

flyerCO

Yep, that's it. During booking it only mentioned 1 stop down in the icon that shows the length of flight between IST and PEK. It doesn't mention where, and isn't mentioned anywhere else. When you clicked through to purchase it just said CZ123 IST-PEK again no mention of stop or need to clear immigration before PEK. Only if you knew to hover over the flight number would it appear. They also showed that the reservation and BP made no mention of the stop.

While Cleary not TWOV compliant, I can't blame the women for thinking they were.

nk15

Although I agree that the OP should have been ok here, let's say for the sake of the argument what would have happened had the airline for operational reasons rebooked the OP's return to PVG-DFW-LAX, as it is within their rights to do, after he had flown the outbound...Now who would responsible for this non compliant TWOV mess?