Here's a legal opinion regarding TWOV 3rd country.

Gary Chodorow (乔德睿) is a China-based immigration lawyer. He has helped clients with U.S. and China visas, permanent residence, and citizenship matters for more than 20 years. Gary also is a founding member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Asia-Pacific chapter, co-chair of the American Chamber of Commerce-China’s visa committee, and adjunct professor at Chicago-Kent School of Law.


Note that the third country or region must not be the originating country. For example, New York -> Beijing -> New York does not qualify, but New York -> Beijing -> Tokyo -> New York does qualify.

Duration of stop in third country is irrelevant (e.g., LAX ->PVG -> NRT -> LAX is OK, even if NRT stop is for only a few hours).

http://lawandborder.com/china-72-hou...t-visa-waiver/

We're asking the agent to recognise 'onward to third country'. Not to deliberate whether it's a stop, or layover, or transit or whatever else.

I think I have found the websites and the problem.
It is called a transit visa, but the requirements are only for onward travel. Back in 2013 they did say several things that makes it sound like it needed to be a true transit through China, but they have since added some terminology, but still call it a transit visa. Like I said, I believe they didn't plan for it, but when it happened were happy with it and want it. As such they post it's ok.

Need Google Translate:
Consular Services of China:
http://cs.mfa.gov.cn/wgrlh/lhqz/cjwd...t1175678.shtml

Here's something very interesting (tells me PEK-NRT-LAX is legal, recognizing that NRT is a transit airport):
Embassy of Finland (Need Google Translate)
http://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/cefi/chn/ls...1/t1350522.htm
Q&A with Finland Embassy
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cefi/eng/...a/t1401858.htm

This is the English Site of Chinese Government
http://english.gov.cn/news/top_news/...5279355100.htm
It mentions But Requirements are:

This is from Shanghai Port, can't get it to load except through Google Translate.

I don't get what is with all the agreement with AA. The problem of agent "negative empowerment" is a cultural problem, where agents seem to "enjoy" saying no by making a policy which is incorrect. Maybe it's a consequence of management hitting hard whenever someone makes a mistake.

IMO this person relied on reasonable information from what most people would consider "authoritative" - the Chinese Embassy, and now as several from the China forum have pointed out - it's actually the letter of Chinese Immigration Law (in Shanghai, which is the destination in question) as well.

And honestly, I've had this problem in situations not related to China as well. Especially at "outstations" like SFO, for example, an agent almost denied me boarding for a CGK flight in the days of VOA, because they couldn't understand what VOA meant.

Anyway, hope that AA fixes the negative empowerment problem soon...

I fear that whatever translation tool you're using is a bit off.

过境免签 /= "transit visa"

ETA: I see this technicality (visa v. no visa) has little/no bearing on the rest of your post.

Google. It is mentioned different ways as transit policy, transit visa, transit free visa, etc... I just combined all of those into "transit visa".

When I had trouble doing TWOV on MSP-NRT-PVG-DTW-MSP, the very senior supervisor got a CBP agent looking for excess cash in the jetway to agree with her that you cannot go to China without a visa. The next authoritative source was the USA State Department website [can you imagine trying to tell someone that information published by the Chinese government is a good source for whether a Chinese citizen can enter the USA?] which seemed at say that for TWOV you must have a visa for your next country. In particular, since the USA will not issue a visa for a USA citizen, no USA citizen could ever do TWOV on USA-AAA-China-USA, nor could you do USA-China-BBB-USA for any country BBB that doesn't require visas for USA citizens, so traveling back through Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, etc. would all be excluded.

On an earlier trip, I was eventually able to prevail (after hours of arguing at NRT) on USA-NRT (about 50 hours)-China- USA. Boarding flights to leave the USA was no problem, but OLCI in Tokyo said that a visa was required, so I went to the airport about four hours early for confirmed business class with no bags to check. I was finally cleared to board just as boarding was starting. Along the way, I had four check in agents and a supervisor doing crazy things like calling random friends in China who believed that everyone going to China needs a visa. I finally convinced a higher level supervisor in the lounge, based on websites of some organizations that were promoting TWOV tours to China that were specifically routed with a connection through a third country in one direction.

Throughout, they were convinced that I would be unable to leave the airport and came very close to insisting that I make a reservation (which would have been nonrefundable at that time) in a PVG airport hotel. I knew that all PVG airport hotels were landslide but omitted telling her just in case I had ended up needing to do this. Note that if for some reason I want to spend two days sleeping on an airport floor, it is not the airline's business.

Big mistake to use Google Translate rather than a real translator who can make the fine distinctions between "transit visa" and "transit without visa" which are two completely separate things, particularly to Chinese Immigration. Unless you really know what you are doing when translating Chinese legalese, it's best not to make the attempt, nor to present your take on Google translate on a public forum. I fear you are adding to the confusion, not to enlightenment.

Not all the pages I mentioned were from Google Translate. The Chinese Government English site specified the same information I mentioned.

This is so interesting because the OP had a confirmed ticket with the onward flight to a country other than the country of origin with AA. When I did LAX-PVG-LAX but then had a separate ticket PVG-ICN-PVG, that took a bit of convincing that I was transiting at PVG (<24 hour stay) because it was a separate ticket.

A few years earlier, I flew LAX-HND-SGN on NH. At the LAX check-in, they were concerned about the VOA set-up with Vietnam and finally accepted with me signing some sort of agreement that I would accept responsibility for denied entry in Vietnam, i.e., transporting myself back to HND.

Is such an option not available to AA? Or is it more than cost of return travel and incurring fines, etc.?

Chinese government websites are also known to use translation software to generate (or aid in generating) English copy. This is almost surely the case for any source that uses "transit visa" in the context of visa free transit.

I will stop trying to help and let the 2 ambassadors handle it. I hope the 2 Ambassadors can bring something to the table and help settle it.

I've used the 72 hour TWOV 3 times, twice through PVG, once through PEK. Each time staying in China for 2 days. Though I haven't done anything like the OP, what the OP wanted to do is fine.

I've done;
LHR-PVG-KUL
LHR-PEK-HKG-SIN
LHR-PVG-HKG-SIN

The 3rd time had some issues with BA. At LHR check in, showed the agent all the paperwork and told them what I was doing. They checked the system and spent some time on the phone and it was all sorted out as fine. Then when I got to the gate for boarding, someone had changed something while I was in the lounge and it all had to be sorted out again at the gate.
Once at PVG, the Shanghai police had no issue with it. Just had to get someone to man the TWV desk.

A trip like SYD-PVG-MEL or LAX-PEK-SFO is not valid.
Something like SYD-PVG-xSIN-SYD or LAX-NRT-PEK-JFK is fine.

So the takeaway I am getting, 200 posts into this thread, is that if one tries to play games to exploit unclear diplomatic policies in foreign countries, they might occasionally run into trouble. Who'da thunk it?

Not quite. It's more like: if you wish to use TWOV in China you may encounter airline staff less experienced than others in interpreting TIMATIC.

I don't think you read all 200 posts in this thread if you are actually asserting there is anything "unclear" about the policy.

We can discuss the complexities of the policy and the language/translation challenges, we can agree or disagree on whether the agent at a station with direct flights to China should be expected to be familiar with the policy, we can posit on whether AA should reimburse the OP for his additional expenses based on their error.

It cannot be disputed that TWOV is both documented and publicized by the Chinese government for the specific purpose of allowing citizens of certain countries the ability to visit China for a defined period (24/72/144 hours depending upon region) without a visa. To state those who avail themselves of this policy are "play[ing] games to exploit unclear diplomatic policies" is not an accurate characterization.

Fair enough - but the "unclear" part in my mind seems to be that, 1) yes, the airlines aren't experienced in understanding it - and since they're the gatekeepers, they're the ones responsible for doing so, and 2) while the policy might be "clear" once dug up and explored over 200 posts by a group of experts, it doesn't exactly exist in a concrete form that can be used to convince an agent in a short period of time.

As long as the language contains the word "transit", IMO what happened here is always likely to happen.

On the contrary the airlines are experienced in understanding it since this type of mistake doesn't occur that frequently.

Before I knew what the policy is, I was in the "give the AAgent the benefit of doubt" camp.

Now I am firmly in the "it's very clear" camp. It didn't take 200 posts by a group of experts. It took only a couple of posts in this thread explaining what the policy actually is to eradicate any of my preconceived notion of the policy based on its name.

I don't think AAgent who made the mistake even bothered to read the policy but rather stuck to his or her preconceived notion of the word "transit."

Yes. The Chinese have set the goalposts and the rules of the game that pertains to access to their own country, and AA agents, in real-time and on their own volition, decided to move the posts and rewrite the rules.

Airline agents, especially GAs and supervisors working international flights departing from international gateway hubs, should know how to use TIMATIC properly and interpret its results.

It's not the responsibility of the customer to guess what might or might not seem clear to the GA, only to have the travel documents that are actually required by the countries to which or through which the customer is traveling.

Employees working at international gateway hubs, such as LAX, don't exclusively deal with international fights as they also work tons of domestic flights. There is not a dedicated "international" check-in counter at LAX. And BTW, employees at domestic airports have also to deal with international pax and it is at the departing airport that the VISA requirements are checked, not a the gateway airport.

As far as the proper use of TIMATIC, this is a case where COMMON SENSE could not be applied.
Anyone that has not read this thread looking at the OP's itinerary would say: This guy is going for 3 days to China, he is not transiting China. I find it hard to believe that people here think it is common sense to believe that the OP was in transit in China.

Why in the world would someone input JAPAN as the final destination on TIMATIC? That just "does not make sense". Period.

Ok, the itinerary was really allowed under Chinese regulations. OK. Understood!! The airport agent was wrong. Ok. Understood.

But how do you train an AA airport agent to act against what his common sense dictates.
The email from the embassy did not say "ENTER JAPAN" as final destination.
The OP's word, in the agent's eye, can be considered questionable.
What the EXP desk, your friends or FT say is something the agent couldn't see.

I think that this is a very particular situation in which correct training was not the solution. Like someone else has said, this can happen again, at least with AA.

Hope the OP gets some kind of refund. But I would not try this again, at least with AA or without a VISA.

If the rules don't define those important words, how can one safely conclude that any ticket onward to a third country is ok? :(

1. I don't think the OP was trying to "abuse" the system as the AA agent alleged. I don't think the OP was trying to "exploit" the system.

2. The OP did research and relied on FT info. which may be correct but was still risky, for obvious reasons. The OP was trying to figure out the correct rules and follow them.

3. Just because someone is allowed to board by an airline agent doesn't prove that they had a valid ticket(s) with respect to visa requirements. Just because someone is allowed entry by immigration officials in China doesn't mean or prove they should have been allowed entry.

4. The AA agent was not being over-empowered. The agent was trying to avoid AA being fined and also to protect the pax from being denied entry in China. The pax could offer to sign an exemption so that AA isn't responsible for the return ticket if denied entry into China, but would that cover any fine?

5. It is not easy reading any country's Timatic, esp. a non-English speaking country.

6. Common sense says a transit is not a final destination. It doesn't have to be defined.

7. There is a difference obviously between a non-stop and a direct flight, but not a big difference. For those who don't think so, then how would you enter info. on your immigration card entering SIN for SFO-NRT-SIN when asked to fill out "Point of embarkation?" Would anyone put NRT? I would enter SFO.

8. The explanation of China rules by many sources talk about the need to fly onward to a 3rd country. Taken in conjunction with China's TWOV policy, common sense would indicate the need to make a stop in another country after transiting China.

9. Yes, maybe the intent of China's TWOV's policy has evolved and so really it should now be called a VOA?

10. I think AA may provide some compensation to the OP as a "one time courtesy," but not because they think they were wrong. This is not just an AA issue. There are many UA examples of pax being denied boarding on itins. to China (both incorrectly and correctly).

11. Travelers to China using the TWOV policy need to be very careful, even if they are sure they are "right," especially these days given the current travel scrutiny of foreign pax to the U.S. Even if the chances of a traveler having a problem are just 1 in a 100, that's still very risky to me. :(

12. I wish the policy was more clear, but I'm not holding my breath for a clarification. I don't get the impression China really cares. :(

The OP presumably TOLD the employee to input Japan as the destination country. If the employee had obliged this simple request, he/she quickly would have ascertained that up to 144 hours is a legal transit.

What the OP said is irrelevant.
If you worked at a check-in desk, you would know that it is not uncommon for PAX to say thousands of things to get away with what they want. And you have to use common sense.
IF you worked at the check-in desk, and you knew there is a risk that your employer could be fined due to your actions, what would you do when the PAX is telling you something that ABSOLUTELY does not make sense to you (input Japan as final destination)?

You guys are too much :p

Well by the explicit definition the visa waiver allows up to 72/144 hours in China. "Transit" does not have to mean someone is spending less then an hour to make a connection.

At the end of the day TIMATIC to me is just a giant calculator. It's always accurate, but it completely depends on what you input.

That begs the question because it would have run contrary to the agent's training. The destination to the OP's first stopover was China, not Japan. The agent is trained to follow TIMATIC and to use IATA definitions. If he follows those rules, he will never get in trouble. AA may choose to refund OP the fare difference, but that is on AA.

If, on the other hand, he boards OP and OP is denied entry to China for a document failure and then asserts to his superior at AA that he believed that OP's destination was Japan because the passenger told him so, he faces discipline.

The OP is the CUSTOMER. Since AA's livelihood depends on revenue provided by customers, of course his requests are relevant!

Using strictly "common sense" by definition shows that
AA employees lack training and have no special knowledge.

common definition:
sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like.

I am admittedly a little sucked in to this thread. I'm familiar enough with the policy to know OP was incorrectly denied boarding. I also appreciate that the application of the policy appears confusing to those who are not familiar with it.

Almost everyone on these boards travels frequently enough that they've been misinformed by an airline employee. For me, the most common example is when I call AA to upfare a ticket. At least a third of the time, the agent wants to charge me a change fee and I advise them it's not required. We may have a quick discussion and I may ask them to check with the rate desk, who confirm that a change fee is indeed not required. Common sense may tell the agent that any change requires a change fee, but the policy clearly states an upfare is not charged a change fee. Fortunately, access to the correct information is readily available through the rate desk.

I don't object to the fact that not all agents will be familiar with TWOV policy, even at stations that serve China with direct flights. But there should be access to someone - either at the station or within AA - who can provide the correct information. If there is a topic on which COMMON SENSE applies less than air travel rules, I don't know what it is.

<redacted>



AA did wrong. AA does wrong many times. AA sucks if you ask me.

What I am saying is that this is a VERY particular scenario where another check-in agent may make the same mistake, regardless of training.

This is a very risky itinerary. What if for some reason, there was a schedule change or something and the OP got re-routed non-stop to LAX a few days in advance? Then the VISA was needed anyway.

This is not about defending AA, for me, this is about preventing this happens again for anyone that reads this thread. It can happen again.

Couldn't be further from the truth. The short line is that apparently especially US carriers can't be bothered to hire staff that understand TIMATIC (and/or fail at giving them proper education about it)

Common Sense
 

To AA agent, the common sense is:

When a passenger flies USA - CHN - JPN -USA, while the time spend in China is over 3 days and few hours in JPN, then this ticket have CHN as destination and JPN as the transit port. So this ticket does not qualify as TRANIST in CHINA.

That is a ticketing COMMON SENSE we have to agree on, from the agent's perspective.

But, the reality is China Immigration is very relaxed about its own rules. As long as you fly to a third country within 144 hours arrival in Yangtze Delta region, you can qualify for the 144 transit visa. To China Immigration, the transit here does not mean 'TRANSIT' in ticketing terms, but practical terms.

In another hand, we have to always remember when China is very flexible on its own rules, when things go wrong, it can work against you. For instance, if the relationship between the USA and China is suddenly frozen due to THAAD (example, please do not shoot, just want to illustrate my point here) or Taiwan, OP here will face a situation that they may be refused entry on the ground that his ticket is technically visiting China while transit in Japan on their way back.

So this is the reality. Under current practise, the OP is no wrong to assume he qualifies the TWOV in PVG. And majority of us here know and think so. Even though in ticketing terms, this ticket is absolutely debatable. But the problem lies on individual China immigration officer's judgement. Last four years, I have used PVG for TWOV twice, and Beijing once. In all occasions, TWOV needs approval from a supervisor while the immigration officer scan the passport. The supervisor never looked at the itinerary but the immigration office always does and do so in a careful exam manner. The supervisor simple stamp the passport with the special 72 hours/144 hours stamp. I have seen a couple of elderly British arguing with the immigration officer to make the case that they are transiting too. So things can go wrong in a case to case basis.

I think the OP should be fine to enter China. In another hand, I also think it is AA's right to refuse OP's ticket. To AA, the correct documentation for TWOV is transiting to a third country. From the wording, OP does not qualify in ticketing terms. Under AA's CoC, it is AA's interests to make sure passengers travel under the correct documentation or they can refuse transportation.

As I said before, if I was OP I would simple get a China visa, or stay in TYO at least overnight. You should never rely on a flexible rule that is known to be flexible! If it swing to your disadvantage, would you blame China immigration for being harsh?

[Because that's what the rule is stating: "any ticket onward to a third country is okay."



I don't think it could be any more clearer than "any ticket onward to a third country or region is okay."

I can see how an airport agent at a small outpost wouldn't deal with TIMATIC regularly, but those at an international gateway hub, there should always be someone around at the check in area and then at the gate for such international departures who is an expert. Also, there's no reason an airline like AA can't generally try to assign their more experienced agents or international specialists to such international departures. If an agent doesn't know, they should be expected to learn the correct answer rather than penalizing the passenger by denying boarding. Just saying "I believe that everyone going to China needs a visa" and repeating the sentence or finding someone else to say the same thing doesn't make it true. Similarly, the agent should follow the rules instead of their own version of "common sense" since customers cannot be expected to predict what some particular employee would consider to be common sense.

Passengers are required to have the travel documents required for their itinerary, not all of the travel documents that some GA might *believe* are required or not the documents that the GA erroneously concludes are required, especially when the passenger can explain the correct situation and even has some documentation to support this.

Events that transpire after the passenger is admitted to China (e.g. schedule changes or passengers deviating from their plans) are NOT AA's concern.

Basically, as long as the passenger can demonstrate TWOV compliance when checking in for his flight to China, AA is obligated to hold up its end of the contract of carriage.

I recently did a similar trip in February flying ORD-NRT-PEK-DFW-ORD and, initially, ran into similar issues with the ticket agents at check-in. The agents entered origin/destination in TIMATIC as ORD-PEK-DFW and it came back with a visa being required for travel. What was interesting was that the agent said if I had been ticketed ORD-PEK-NRT-ORD, I would have been fine because I was "flying to a third country on the way home." I explained that yes, that was correct and that I was just doing this in the reverse - it finally took the station manager coming down and schooling the agents before we were given our boarding passes. They also told us that our records were noted in the event JL denied us boarding at Narita we were on our own. Of course, the JL folks had no problems, Immigration at PEK had no problem and we got our passports stamped with a Temporary Entry Permit. After the station manager told them how to issue our BP's, the agent just put them on the counter, said "Here" and never made eye contact with us.

I guess my question would be (and I may have missed it) when reading TIMATIC: Does it actually state that the ticket must show or be constructed in such a way that the port in China is transit point (i.e. that the fare is actually a r/t ORD-NRT and either the outbound or return is routed via China)?

Right, exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. Unless that agent has a big piece of paper, laminated, with bold font and management signature, telling them to ignore the word "transit", then that AAgent is probably not going to stick their neck out and risk some big diplomatic mess. Do we think that front-line AAgents are spending all of their time reading the latest legal precedents regarding "TIMATIC" when AA hasn't even properly trained them on upgrade procedures or boarding order? In order for this to not be an issue, AA corporate would have to deem this to be a priority, and I can think of some reasons why they wouldn't want to.

In my hypothetical re-routing I did not say this happened after departure.

What if OP is re-routed NON-STOP PVG-LAX one day before his LAX-PVG departure (not unheard of). Go to the check in desk and say..but but, the original routing was through NRT, please use NRT as final destination?

That is wild speculation on your part.


There really isn't much/any room for "judgement", and the fact that documents are examined carefully doesn't suggest there is.


Did you analyze their case yourself? If not, how do you know whether or not they were compliant?


And what about cases where passengers have the correct documentation, but the airline decides to refuse transportation? Or do you think the COC should be a one way street?

The whole point of the TWOV policy is to permit people like the OP to visit China without obtaining a visa in advance (an inconvenient process for some). What's more, whether he stays in Japan for 5 minutes or 5 years is irrelevant.

So, you're pretty much suggesting that China should toss its widely popular policy because it is flexible?:confused: And, unless you can show any examples of it "swinging to [anyones] disadvantage", I would argue that this fear is completely groundless.