shorthauldad

You'd deploy your crystal ball/mind-reading powers at the origin to find pax who might be intending to drop a final segment, and you'd deny them boarding of the first flight in their itin, based on what they might be planning to do later?

Hilarious!

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

The Chinese officially state that adding an immediate connection in HKG will validiate an otherwise invalid TWOV.

If they state that, and the consulate states an itinerary is valid, and the passenger is willing to sign an indemnity, and the airline isn't willing to call China immigration to confirm, I think the airline has not acted reasonably in denying uplift.

As you say, you don't have experience. I agree there is a tiny risk a passenger may encounter an agent unwilling to be flexible and explore all avenues before denying boarding.

The solution perhaps is not to discourage TWOV, but rather to provide the appropriate tools for the passenger to ensure boarding.

This includes a phone number for Shanghai immigration (we have one for PEK already in the master thread).

shorthauldad

What do these very experienced counsellors think "transit" means? (Genuine Q)

Do they think it means pax has to stay airside? ...or are they including "transit" pax who enter Japan, spend almost 24h exploring, and head back to the airport to continue their journey?

Dave Noble

If the itinerary as issued is not believed to be valid, then denying boarding is correct

If trying to argue the possibility of dropping a segment as a workaround, hardly likely to be accepted by the airline. If the passenger did not announce the plan, there would be no good reason to assume it would occur

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

Their opinion might be that you are abusing the TWOV rules, but this doesn't reflect the operation of TWOV.

There is lots of speculation as to the definition of 'transit', or 'destination', or whether a ticket is returning to where you started. Perhaps because of all these complications and definitions Chinese immigration take a very simplistic approach. They don't look at anything beyond your immediate 'in and out'. Makes it very simple for them. And very simple for us.

shorthauldad

The AAgent is allowed use the crystal ball to argue the possibility that the pax might stay airside at NRT to deny boarding, though? Hardly likely to be accepted by the passenger.

More sensible all round if airline staff would stop guessing and start reading?

LAX - PVG - NRT = US to China to Japan

seawolf

But the AA agent don't go by a website printout. The the agent go to TIMATIC. Tell China to go update their TIMATIC entries to make it more clear.

With NRT being less than 24 hours, the onward leg from PVG was holistically a China->US trip thus TVOW does not apply. If AA agent boarded OP and on the way to PVG, the PVG-NRT or NRT-LAX was cancelled, OP would have be rebooked PVG-LAX (non-stop, via SFO, or DFW etc) thus making it even more clear TVOW is non-applicable in this situation to begin with.

gengar

I understand your participation in this thread is recent, so I will simply point out once again: Even if your position is that TIMATIC is wrong, it is still not a tenable stance for AA to choose to rely on TIMATIC (especially for CYA purposes), then deny boarding to a pax with a valid itinerary, force the pax to upfare resulting in more profit to AA, and still deny full compensation afterwards.

The relevance of TIMATIC at all in this is also belied by the fact that upper-level staff at AA are aware of the correct interpretation of China TWOV policy, as reported earlier in this thread by other FTers. It is only the low-level staff who have not been trained appropriately.


This situation was also already addressed previously in this thread.

jetsfan92588

Our company has visa guidelines (for both personal and business travel). "The [] Team, in consultation with the Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China, has developed these guidelines for holders of U.S. Passports. However, you should always be prepared to make changes to your itinerary in the event of necessity."

They then talk about the transit visa and indicate, essentially, that the airports listed on the boarding pass are controlling. They then talk about unscheduled landings, etc. However, based on those guidelines (I have no familiarity with the transit visa other than the fact that I've used it personally before) a scheduled landing at NRT qualifies as a third country regardless of the length of the stop (unless there's something special about NRT, but it doesn't say anything about that).

I'd believe these over any airport agent considering last time I went to China with my wife who is Taiwanese, the GA was claiming that she didn't have the appropriate documentation. My wife, being Taiwanese with family living in China, knew exactly what documentation was required but the GA kept insisting that she "[didn't] know what [she was] talking about." I haven't wished bad things on many people, but that GA is one of the people I was really hoping would get fired (more based on her handling of the situation than lack of knowledge).

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

Involuntary changes to an itinerary do not invalidate TWOV. If your flight out of china is delayed or cancelled the passenger is not held liable for any overstay.

anacapamalibu

Letter of the law
Spirit of the law

Its "transit" with out visa. The intent of the rule is for transit not spending 6 days in China. You are atempting to abuse the system. Doesn't matter what paperwork you have you are net getting on that flight.

JonNYC

Was it your intention to use quotes or something? This sounds like an evolution of position otherwise.

As far what it all comes down to; will be interesting to see what further, productive, contact OP has with AA. Until/unless they make further financial accommodation (and even in that event,) the risk of being denied boarding in a similar fashion-- or running into similar hassle at the very least*-- when flying AA on a similar itin a) exists and, b) is undeniable.

* note from the wiki, that that -is- the actual topic of the thread: "This thread is ONLY for discussion of American Airlines' ground staff dealing with Chinese TWOV issues."

seawolf

OP is not overstaying. OP didn't have proper visa to enter to begin with because TVOW does not to apply. I would even wager the airfare involved was a US-China roundtrip without any stopover.

^

TVOW cover vast majority of travelers who is merely doing a short stay in China to 3rd country. If OP built a schedule for more than 24 hours in NRT, this would have been clear cut. Perhaps OP had business in NRT but as far as airline is concerned, this was a US->China round trip.

For whatever reason, OP decide to game it. Not sure if it was intentional but in retrospect, easier and cheaper to get the visa to begin with.

anacapamalibu

When China first started TWOV it was 24hr...fine.
6 days...no way..try again!

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

Involuntary changes to an itinerary do not invalidate TWOV. If your flight out of china is delayed or cancelled the passenger is not held liable for any breach of TWOV (which might include overstay or rerouting).

One or two agents not understanding the rules does not mean everyone has to go and get visas. 39,000 passengers used TWOV last year in China, including pax on the same sort of itinerary as the OP. Passengers shouldn't have to go to additional expense because of airline error.