erik123

I assume the intent is to promote the use of Chinese carriers and those passengers spending $ in China. Like Singapore has been doing since the 70s.

anacapamalibu

When foreign governments bend the rules. You can respond likewise. Business is business.

MSPeconomist

Having an "official" stopover over 48 hours at NRT still doesn't avoid problems with airline agents not letting one board for TWOV.

C17PSGR

Which is why our TWOV discussions -- even if we disagree about practice vs. policy, intentional ambiguity, or whether a connection in NRT qualifies as an "onward connection to a third country" need to inform FTers that:


This is not unique to AA (see the recent post about the interpretation of a sophisticated corporate travel office), FT has several reports of TWOV issues similar to that of the OP reported in different airline threads, and I'm not seeing any evidence of airlines pulling out their checkbooks on this issue.

JonNYC

Very true, I found reports on Twitter as well-- Air Canada, others.

anacapamalibu

SOP vouchers..miles

"Liu sent multiple emails to United, asking it to address two problems. First, the fact that he was denied boarding because of a bogus visa problem. And second, that his luggage went to China without him, and in violation of its own policies and security protocol.

United’s response? It offered him either a $400 dollar travel voucher and 10,000 miles or 25,000 miles."

http://elliott.org/blog/is-this-enou...-china-anyway/

stephem

Let's be clear, the chances of not being allowed to board are fairly slim, even with a US carrier, which means that for the (mostly US-based) carriers who dont think this is allowed then they are breaking their rules and allowing it in many cases. They are either right in the OPs case and wrong in those they allow (without any adverse consequence) to board, they cannot be right in both. BTW, my experience was that Asian airlines know/knew the correct interpretation of the rule (irrespective of the anecdote about CX letting someone on for an itinerary that didnt qualify) and wouldn't deny boarding. With the US carriers, less so, but for all US airlines there is no doubt that some staff do understand the 2 country rule and do not deny boarding, notwithstanding the position some with no experience using TWOV here who would hold that A-China-B is not permissible.

Is it the position of people here that for all those of us who have used TWOV on a US carrier before that we "got over" on the airline or that the airline staff erred in letting us board? I agree this is a training issue and maybe less so an interpretation issue, but among my wide group of friends that use this, it is only people who tried throw away ticketing (and not actually leaving to a different country than they arrived from) or tried to travel outside the area restriction.

In addition to the things people have posted here, in my experience in the past I found that nearly every English language website for the PRC has a description of this and they all say clearly A-China-A is not permitted but everything else is. I scoured the web before using it for the first time and it was crystal clear what China would allow.

C17PSGR

No one is accusing OP of trying to get over on the airline. He read the information on FT and may or may not have been aware of the issues/risk with routings like his (as opposed to someone from Melbourne who goes to Shanghai for a few days and then goes to Hong Kong for a few days and then returns to Melbourne).

As for websites and blogs, there are certainly many that take very clear positions on what China will allow. I've certainly read the Shanghai immigration website and don't believe it makes it "crystal clear" that OP's routing is permitted.

seawolf

There does not appear to be any misunderstanding on AAgent's part.

AAgent saw OP is not transiting to 3rd country as OP was ticketed back to origin country (US) via NRT as a connection and not a stopover and thus denied boarding as OP didn't qualify for TVOW and didn't have a Chinese visa.

The crux is NRT is a connection.

sbjnyc

I've been following this thread as I'm planning to enter China using the TWOV rules in a couple of weeks. Fortunately my itinerary is more straightforward than the OPs.

The common english language definition of the word transit is simply "the act or fact of passing across or through; passage from one place to another." There is nothing in the definition that refers to a particular length of time. While the airlines may have conditioned us otherwise, why would China's immigration policy refer to airline jargon rather than the basic definition of the word?

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

Indeed the AAgent saw NRT was a transit, but that doesn't invalidate TWOV from the Chinese perspective.

MEL-PVG-HKG-MEL (HKG 2 hours) is fine. MEL-PVG-BKK-MEL (BKK four hours) is fine. SYD-HKG-PVG-SYD (HKG 14 hours) is fine. All accepted for travel by QF, CX, TG, QF respectively.

Regardless of the AAgent's interpretation, AA had a number of other options to assist the OP... calling their own office in China, calling Shanghai immigration, asking the passenger to sign an indemnity, selling the passenger a fully refundable PVG-HKG-PVG flight rather than a change the current ticket with high change fees.

stephem

BTW- one other thing, all the hyptheticals about what if this flight is cancelled or that one rerouted or whatever... You know what the answer is, because I once asked? It is that you are in the country lawfully but need to actually go apply for a visa, which they allow you to do while you are there. Nobody gets fined or deported for this. A colleague who got sick and couldn't travel did this.

While NooBs who have never used this (or maybe even left the US) get their underwear in a bunch trying to do mental gymnastics imposing meanings on words that differ from China's policy, it is plain as day that this is an intended way (intended by the PRC govt) around having to get a visa for short stays. If you look at the history of it, it started in a couple of provinces and has been so successful at raking in $$ they have expanded it.

The problem here is not the policy and not even the intent, it is that the silly tool that US carriers rely on is not semantically interoperable with the China TWOV policy. And so to properly assess validity of travel to China without a visa from the US, the airline agent needs to do something that to them (and anyone slavishly insisting that "destination" means what it means to IATA and not simple a "third region" as China means) looks unnatural and potentially put the third region in as a destination- even if it is only a "connection" under IATA terms.

C17PSGR

Well US carriers do use Timatic which is based on information provided by the Chinese representatives to the IATA. Timatic is not used only by American carriers but by a number of carriers around the world. Absence some clarification from the Chinese representative to Timatic, AA agents, like many other airlines, will continue to have the same issues with the terms in Timatic.

As for noobs applying the common understanding of terms ... it may be that some of those noobs have lived in several countries, flown millions of miles, and might even have some knowledge of China and Chinese government methods of communication.

JonNYC

^

carlosdca

Are there even phones capable of doing international calls at the check-in stations? (even simple US domestic call)
And I wonder if calling any gov. agency in China is like calling the IRS. Does ever a real person answer the phone and someone fluent in English? And what about time difference?

Also, I did not know the check-in agents have readily available "indemnity" forms under the counter or even have the ability the create one.