Yes, its a breach of carriage of contract.

thread that explains it.

We do use a different version of TIMATIC. It just looks different.

It all boils down to this -- TIMATIC, in some parts, reads like a law book. Confusing to the layperson. Thats why if you're absolutely, positively, confirmed by us here, sure that you're right, ask the agent to call Global Assistance. They read TIMATIC all day. If they say no, well, you have one airtight complaint if you are right.

I obviously means that you must have a visa if a visa is required by that third country given your passport. Sounds pretty clear to me and it has always been read that way.

@MSP: We're still waiting on you to tell us how your case was resolved. Did DL compensate you nicely? Did DL promise to do a better job on the employee training front? If you're obligated to some sort of gag order, I understand, but if not, then please describe the aftermath.

I had a circumstance of airline error and denied boarding. They simply asked for receipts for out of pocket expenses and credit 25K "courtesy" miles.
No requirement to sign any type of settlement agreement or "gag order".

Sorry missed that, I must have been so flabbergasted at the ridiculous run around you got from DL. Good move your part. Bad move DL.

Except that the OP was using the TWOV against how it was intended to be used. The OP wasn't transiting China. He was transiting Japan to get to China as his ultimate destination. The TWOV was designed to help Chinese airlines carry more connecting pax, not for businessmen to avoid getting a visa. Anyone looking at his ticket would be hard moved to say that Shanghai was a transit point!

With a USA-NRT-PVG...stopover....PVG-USA flight, I can completely see why the agent had problems. It could have been solved by only checking in as far as NRT, then checking in again there.

However, if the ticket was constructed so that NRT was a transit point only (as I imagine it was, to make the ticket cheaper), and PVG as a stopover, then perhaps DL aren't able to do this (and quite rightly so). The ticket was USA to Shanghai return - the outbound just happened to have a change of plane in Tokyo. Tokyo wasn't a destination, or start point. As far as DL are concerened, you are flying to China, and need a visa. Your next destination is the USA. As such, you can't use a TWOV.

Whilst physically the OP was travelling from Japan to USA via PVG, it think he was asking for trouble. Had he spent a night in Japan, there wouldn't have been an issue.

shefgab, are you working for Delta by any chance?

OP was doing something the Chinese are perfectly happy about. And which they clearly allow to do.

The only problem here is that apparently Delta staff can't understand TWOV rules. Which means either they're unable to read (which I would feel sorry about.. but then they should never have gotten that job) - or that they can't properly use their system - which means Delta failed at schooling (given we're talking about low-income jobs here, where it's the staff isn't supposed to be educating themselves on low-level "problems"..)

In any case, it's Deltas fault. Don't even think about blaming OP for that.

Nearly all of this post is complete nonsense. The OP had a valid TWOV itinerary according to Chinese regulation. Issues of "intent" are irrelevant. The fault is entirely on Delta and its staff.

With all due respect, you are completely off of your rocker.

No, I don't work for Delta (or the Chinese, or the OP, or a visa agent).

As I said before, this policy was introduced and called TRANSIT without visa. Clearly the OP's ticket is transiting in Tokyo with Shanghai as a destination, so I don't think it's accurate to say that the OP was doing "something the Chinese are perfectly happy about" (possibly something they ignore, or something they don't realise is happening (they only ask what flight you've come off, and where to next)), otherwise they'd have just introduced a "3 day visa free entry" or similar. Why go to the bother of making it a TWOV rather than just Visit WOV? (Now, don't throw a wobbly, just think about it!)

I imagine the reason you have to go from country A to China to country B is that they DON'T want people to avoid getting a visa if China is the main purpose of travel (as it was in this case). I imagine the Chinese thought that their wording would eliminate situations such as a quick transit in a 3rd country without leaving the airport (like the OP), although weren't quite canny enough to stop this eventutality. Maybe with more occurences like this, feedback will find its way back, and the wording will be made stricter (e.g. the traveller must pass immigration in country A and country B).

I was just looking at the situation in an analytical way, seeing where the benefits in each arguement lay. Personally, it doesn't affect me if the OP got to China or not. I am impartial! Why is everyone so indignant? I'm just looking at how it might have been seen my the DL agent who is responsible for checking these things. Who knows, perhaps DL had repercussions from the Chinese for a similar itinerary? I mean, without a change of planes in Tokyo, it's a straight forward return to PVG which does require a visa.

Are there any other situations in the World where you can avoid getting a visa because of where you changed planes on your way there?

Nearly all complete nonsense? Thanks. Actually, I think most of it is accurate irrespective of if DL were wrong.

Any reason to say I'm insane? That's quite really quite offensive. I hadn't realised everyone on this forum had so much rage against people that don't agree. Yikes. Don't worry, I'll not be back!

Anyway, don't worry folks, you can put your pitchforks down! On the record I say: I was wrong! Delta was certainly wrong! DL should be banned from flying to China (I believe I read that suggestion upthread). Without a shadow of a doubt, the OP should have been allowed access to China on the TWOV.

shefgab, you must be that guy which prefers to continue fighting even when everyone around you is telling you it's game over, isn't it? Seriously..

China is fine with whatever OP is doing.. just as China is fine with what I'll be doing next week, TWOV, entering from Austria, exiting to Switzerland (two countries which have a common boarder, several thousand kilometre away from China) - regarding Visa/TWOV, it's not about what is "logical", but what is allowed. And if you enter China (single airport) from a flight from Japan and depart it to the USA, you're clearly using TWOV, no matter how long you're staying in Japan, China, or the US for that matter.. case closed.

Transit without visa, or alternatively 'transit visa' are commonly accepted terms. TIMATIC is peppered with it, and most countries either have either some waiver, (or some requirement), to obtain a visa if you are in transit through their country.

While I appreciate your reasoning, I think the Chinese are pretty switched on. They want the $$ passengers in 'transit' and entering the country will spend. Taxis, hotels, food. They'd rather have someone visit china for three days without a visa, than not visit at all because they can't be bothered to send off the application forms.

As you pointed out, under your reasoning, simply by checking-in again in Tokyo, would have 'properly' triggered TWOV. Well I guess the Chinese can't see the point in that. And the airlines can't see the point in that.

So the requirement is simply 'inbound boarding pass' and 'outbound ticket'.

If we were to extend your reasoning to its ultimate end, it would mean TWOV should only be available for passengers on Chinese airlines, or, connecting in China to a Chinese airline for a destination only served by a Chinese airline.

Otherwise you'd potentially have the argument that a passenger flying from London on BA, connecting to Hong Kong on CX in Shanghai, shouldn't really be allowed TWOV because they could have flown BA direct to Hong Kong. The 'transit' in PVG is completely artificial... manufactured to have a stay in China without the need for a visa.

You're neither the first, nor the last, person to accuse us of being arrogant/obnoxious.

I happen to like our blunt style. The post you are attempting to defend was WRONG, and we called you out on it. Cutting to the chase saves time!

You are free to spread inaccurate information elsewhere.

What moondog said.
Nobody here seems to "raging" except you. If you get your feelings hurt this easily because of your own mistakes + stubbornness in trying to play a losing hand, that's on you, not the participants of this forum.