FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   American Airlines | AAdvantage (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-airlines-aadvantage-733/)
-   -   144 TWOV China- AA Issues/Questions (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-airlines-aadvantage/1837368-144-twov-china-aa-issues-questions.html)

sukn Apr 17, 17 11:06 pm


Originally Posted by ORD2NRT (Post 28193907)
An email from someone working at an embassy is not sufficient documentation of anything. Someone from a US Embassy can issue you a visa and CIS can still turn you away at the border. It's just an email.

So your opinion is that no one is right. :p

rjw242 Apr 17, 17 11:06 pm


Originally Posted by ORD2NRT (Post 28193907)
An email from someone working at an embassy is not sufficient documentation of anything. Someone from a US Embassy can issue you a visa and CIS can still turn you away at the border. It's just an email.

Written communications of any kind from a diplomatic official in most instances are considered pretty rock-solid. However, the airline agent has the final say over whether or not to accept that as evidence of permission to travel.

NickP 1K Apr 17, 17 11:07 pm

I would have gotten visa's.

Let me make this clearer. I've done TWOV about 10 times going LAX/SFO-PEK-KUL or LAX/SFO-PEK-SIN. Some airlines will interpret the rules differently, in my cases PEK was always a transit point that I choose to stay for 48 hours or so for meetings and avoided a Chinese Visa. I've also attempted LAX-HKG-PEK-SFO and CX denied the TWOV waiver - had CX then accept if I re-issue the UA PEK-SFO segment to SAME day connect they would allow me to continue. Did that, they confirmed, and I flew to PEK. Had my OLD itin ready for Chinese immigration and they let me in TWOV. Switched my UA flight back to 48 hours later. Again I was prepared to NOT be let in and just transit back home.

Generally on TWOV with most Airlines I've seen the burden to be you are continuing onwards and spending MORE than 48 hours in the other country. There is a grey area though on the CX/UA routing I did. Chinese immigration may be more lax in reality but the Air carriers are more cautious. In the case of my CX HKG stop it was just that a stopover - OK I left the airport for 7 hours for meetings but it was a stopover - out of LAX they didn't catch it and I just mentioned TWOV. In HKG I was questioned on it before boarding and did the switch quick on the UA flight as they were about to move me to HKG-SFO on CX (Ticket was issued by CX). Basically had the same as the OP but it was the OUTBOUND I did the other country connect.

ORD2NRT Apr 17, 17 11:07 pm


Originally Posted by JonNYC (Post 28193914)
Well put, (and welcome to FT!) but, I would take tiny exception with "So really everyone is "right" -- -not- out of some need to be right personally here, rather, I'd say it only matters if the check-in agent is right-- and certainly it sounds like your take is, they are (to not allow the ticket as-is.)

Thanks, and very true. Hence the quotation marks.

Ultimately China needs to clarify the rule. If they don't care make it clear in the regulation. As is it is dreadfully vague and as stated requires the agent to identify China as a transit location. As you note numerous times above - that's a tall order for a lot of people when common sense clearly shows China is the destination.

ORD2NRT Apr 17, 17 11:08 pm


Originally Posted by rjw242 (Post 28193928)
Written communications of any kind from a diplomatic official in most instances are considered pretty rock-solid. However, the airline agent has the final say over whether or not to accept that as evidence of permission to travel.

The ambassador? Sure.

Front line embassy staff? I'd quibble since I've seen that crumble in the past.

sukn Apr 17, 17 11:08 pm


Originally Posted by JonNYC (Post 28193924)
I, too, am told that such letter is completely irrelevant.

The only point I was making was that coming from the embassy, one has to assume it is an informed opinion rather than a document that would allow boarding.

FlyingJay Apr 17, 17 11:09 pm


Originally Posted by ORD2NRT (Post 28193922)
As someone who works with a lot of government actions, I would emphasize that governments are big and full of people who say a lot of things. Having something in writing from a government employee does not supersede the actual law/regulation. I've seen government employees tell people in writing dozens of things are totally fine only to find out it was, in fact, not okay.

Again - it's just an email.

What else could I have done? I booked the itinerary through AA reservation. Asked if the TWOV would work, Was told yes by AA CS. I confirmed through contact with Chinese Consulate via email. Was denied boarding at airport.

JonNYC Apr 17, 17 11:09 pm


Originally Posted by ORD2NRT (Post 28193934)
Thanks, and very true. Hence the quotation marks.

Ultimately China needs to clarify the rule. If they don't care make it clear in the regulation. As is it is dreadfully vague and as stated requires the agent to identify China as a transit location. As you note numerous times above - that's a tall order for a lot of people when common sense clearly shows China is the destination.

I couldn't and can't put it any better than that. ^


Originally Posted by sukn (Post 28193937)
The only point I was making was that coming from the embassy, one has to assume it is an informed opinion rather than a document that would allow boarding.

No argument at all, always appreciate your input.


Originally Posted by IggySD (Post 28193942)
Fair enough. And I agree, no matter how technically correct one may be (which is of course, the best kind of correct) in the long run it's easiest to just get the visa. The only reason I didn't is because my passport expires later this year (so less than 11 months validity which is required for a 10 year visa) and not being able to go on the trip was of minimal impact if things didn't work out.

I would encourage anyone else just to get the visa to prevent any issues (and am planning on getting my own as soon as I renew my passport next week).

Ditto :)

IggySD Apr 17, 17 11:10 pm


Originally Posted by JonNYC (Post 28193897)
I totally hear ya. Although "length of the stay in the third country" I'd still say is misleading a bit-- and more importantly very likely to trip up check-in agents-- as there is NO "length of the stay in the third country" on a transit in said country.

I definitely defer to those who say they've succeeded and even those who say the rule can be/should be/is often-- or even -is- that technically that transit in NRT solves all. But I'm steadfast in my opinion that winning that argument with a check-in agent will get no easier, until/unless the language in TIMATIC changes.

Fair enough. And I agree, no matter how technically correct one may be (which is of course, the best kind of correct) in the long run it's easiest to just get the visa. The only reason I didn't is because my passport expires later this year (so less than 11 months validity which is required for a 10 year visa) and not being able to go on the trip was of minimal impact if things didn't work out.

I would encourage anyone else just to get the visa to prevent any issues (and am planning on getting my own as soon as I renew my passport next week).

rjw242 Apr 17, 17 11:11 pm


Originally Posted by ORD2NRT (Post 28193936)
The ambassador? Sure.

Front line embassy staff? I'd quibble since I've seen that crumble in the past.

I'm not saying that the airline has to accept it, only that such written communications aren't thrown around willy-nilly. "Front line embassy staff" are fully empowered diplomatic officials, not low-level customer service reps.

Conversely, the OP could have a signed letter from the Premier of China himself and AA staff wouldn't be required to allow him to board (nor would they have the capacity to verify it in the first place).

FlyingJay Apr 17, 17 11:11 pm


Originally Posted by ORD2NRT (Post 28193934)
Thanks, and very true. Hence the quotation marks.

Ultimately China needs to clarify the rule. If they don't care make it clear in the regulation. As is it is dreadfully vague and as stated requires the agent to identify China as a transit location. As you note numerous times above - that's a tall order for a lot of people when common sense clearly shows China is the destination.

So 144 hours in China is transit and 16 or so hours in NRT is destination? How many hours would qualify for destination in your eyes?

ORD2NRT Apr 17, 17 11:13 pm


Originally Posted by FlyingJay (Post 28193939)
What else could I have done? I booked the itinerary through AA reservation. Asked if the TWOV would work, Was told yes by AA CS. I confirmed through contact with Chinese Consulate via email. Was denied boarding at airport.

Even if you did all that you could have done (and honestly it seems like you did!), it doesn't change the fact that the policy is vague and poorly enforced. Sometimes it's not anything you did, you just get swept up in the current.

ORD2NRT Apr 17, 17 11:14 pm


Originally Posted by FlyingJay (Post 28193949)
So 144 hours in China is transit and 16 or so hours in NRT is destination? How many hours would qualify for destination in your eyes?

You should ask China to clarify their policy. Until they do we're all just tilting at windmills. ;)

JonNYC Apr 17, 17 11:17 pm


Originally Posted by ORD2NRT (Post 28193953)
You should ask China to clarify their policy. Until they do we're all just tilting at windmills. ;)

But would it not be the case that as long as NRT was an actual stop on the return ticket, rather than a transit, that the length of said stop would probably be of no relevance?

NickP 1K Apr 17, 17 11:18 pm


Originally Posted by JonNYC (Post 28193960)
But would it not be the case that as long as NRT was an actual stop on the return ticket rather than a transit that the length of said stop would probably be of no relevance?

My CX experience I posted above tells me that the carrier wants to see the other stop being more than 2 days.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:48 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.