My son was recently denied boarding on a flight from San Francisco to Wuhan, China. The entire itinerary was Denver -> Wuhan -> Guangzhou
-> Kathmandu Nepal. The stated reason by the gate agents was something about Chinese immigration not allowing two or more stops while passing through China. This ticket was purchased from Priceline and of course they mentioned no such restriction. My son is now in Nepal on a brand new ticket purchased at a much higher price that did not go through China. I am trying to obtain at least a refund for him while he is off the grid. I have sent written complaints to both Priceline and China Southern Airlines. Priceline responded that a visa from China is required for this itinerary. My research says there is a 24 hour free transit option that does not require a visa (the schedule was to arrive in Wuhan Nov 2 at 6:35pm then depart Guangzhou 8:55am Nov 3.)
By the way, on the day of the flight, Priceline offered absolutely no help over the phone - you are SOL was basically their attitude. Do I have a valid complaint here? Against who - Priceline or China Southern? I have also complained to the Dept. of Transportation and my state attorney general (WA). I have also disputed the charge with the credit card company and they have issued a temporary refund, but I don't know if that will hold. Any advice appreciated.

It is the traveler's responsibility to determine what, if any, visas are required prior to embarking on their trip. If there is ambiguity you should never rely on any third party to inform you of visa requirements but rather get the information directly from the embassy of the countries involved. All airline tickets state in their conditions of carriage (effectively the contract between you and the airline) that the passenger must obtain all necessary visas and that boarding will be denied if proper documentation is not presented.

The Chinese transit-without-visa (TWOV) policies have several nuances and vary between ports of entry. My research indicates that Wuhan is not eligible for multi-stop 24-hour TWOV for US citizens. Therefore, the airline was correct to deny boarding.

See this thread for the best possible information.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/china...er-thread.html
You might want to ask the mods to move your query there as those guys know everything.

However, directly from the wiki, assuming your son was travelling on a US passport, it does seem he was not eligible for 24hr multi-stop TWOV in Wuhan and the airline was correct to deny boarding.

24-Hour TWOV

24 Hour TWOV: available in most cities except Fuzhou (FOC), Yanji (YNJ), and Shenzhen (SZX)(current exclusion as of 7 August 2016), and the only option if you have more than one stop or transit in China##

Note: passengers travelling on US and Canadian passports are not permitted to use the multiple-stop transit within China if transiting through Tianjin (TSN), Weihai (WEH), Wuhan (WUH), Xi'an (XIY) or Zhengzhou (CGO).

Sadly, as eigenvictor pointed out, it is 100% the passenger's responsibility to ensure they have the correct travel documents. Neither Priceline nor China Southern is liable here, unfortunately.

You won't win this one on the merits - meaning that you were right and he should have been allowed to board. I would try booking another trip using the same search engine and taking screen shots. If there is no warning at all - the OTA may help you (technically still your responsibility but since the industry trend is to draw attantion to that issue...). You might discover that there us a warning that was perhaps overlooked.

The next strategy would be to see if you can get a credit for some portion of the ticket value . Not what you want - but better than nothing.

Interesting to know!
I did Vancouver, Beijing, Shanghai, Melbourne, but I guess the 2 big cities are allowed the multi-stop layover.

Tianjin (TSN), Weihai (WEH), Wuhan (WUH), Xi'an (XIY), and Zhengzhou (CGO) are the only cities NOT permitted for multi-stop TWOV, and this restriction ONLY applies to Americans and Canadians.

I disagree with the idea that the OTA (or airline) should bear any responsibility for advising customers of visa requirements. Their duties don't extend to legal advice.

Moving this to the China forum for further discussion. Thanks. /JY1024, TravelBuzz co-moderator

Just a few days ago on another forum a traveller reported being caught on this very same technicality because of a two-stop transit in Shanghai and Tianjin.

It's an extremely obscure exception, one I cannot understand given it's limited to Canadians and Americans, and you have my sympathy. But my sympathy's not going to get you very far with the airline.

Complaints should go to the Chinese embassy, which on its website does not mention this exception:

http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/visas/zgqz/

To expect travellers to scroll through the jargon of Timatic first to find this well-hidden trap is not reasonable, but that is the expectation.

Sorry.

Maybe the airline will issue a credit, but I don't agree the passenger should have been allowed to board. This could have resulted in more cost if the passenger arrived in China and was sent back to the USA.

It is possible the passenger may have had a visa for China - the OTA doesn't know this. Having to include a warning based on nationality for every booking made on line would be a huge undertaking.

Don't even trust the Embassy site. IIRC, they mention that a ABTC cardholder can enter in lieu of a visa. That applies to full ABTC participating countries with China in the endorsement. That does not apply to transitional countries such as US and Canada. They only let US/Canadian ABTC holders use the ABTC lanes.

Travelers can always check with a visa processing agency to determine if they need a visa. In case where a traveler cannot do TWOV, a G visa may help (should check with agency too).

I don't think he was suggesting to trust the embassy website (we all know that's info on visa matters is incomplete/outdated), but that it could be an okay channel in which to lodge a complaint.

I'm trying to see if CZ itself is at fault.

CZ's website does not provide links to Timatic.

It does have a page called "Visa", but does not have any information regarding China: http://global.csair.com/US/GB/INFO/CXZB/PAVI

Then it has this page (http://global.csair.com/US/GB/FLUS/ZZFW/GJMQ) about "visa-free transit". However, it mentions how CAN-WUH-SFO and other one-stop flights will exclude you for 72 hours. There is nothing about 24 hours or the special WUH restrictions. And the embassy/consulate pages say nothing about it.

Then we must ask, why is CZ in the business flying WUH-SFO if WUH has this restriction? There should be a USDOT complaint filed already!

CZ flights this route because the whole world is not made up of American or Canadian passport holders who do not have Chinese visas, which is who the exception applies to. There are other nationalities in the world, you know. As much as we like to think we are the centre of the universe, CZ obviously does not agree. Saying an airline has no business flying a route because it impacts US and Canadian passport holders who want to use TWOV is ridiculous.

Plus, it is 100% the traveller's reaponsibility to ensure they have the proper documents for their journey. How could CZ possibly bear any reaponsibility for this? This entire post is ridiculous.

How about if the US government were to have a policy that visa holders from China cannot use SJC to enter the US, and US embassies and consulates do not advertise such information, and Air China does not give you a link to Timatic or mention the SJC exception on its website, and then launch a route PEK-SJC? (Fortunately, CA is much more meticulous on its website, listing all documents required of Taiwanese and HKers who've been buying the PEK transit.)

We're talking about what's "reasonable" here. And CZ flying WUH-USA while not mentioning the WUH exception but is selling routings to third countries is not reasonable.

The question is, how are they supposed to find out about this trap?

I have searched even the Chinese pages, and I find no government source reporting this limitation for Americans and Canadians. Not even the Wuhan Foreign Affairs Office:

http://www.whfao.gov.cn/html/guide/2...04_45988.shtml (search way down for "24")

Not to say it's certainly not there somewhere, but I can't find it.

Yes, if passengers burrow down in social media, they might get an inkling there's a problem here. But really, that shouldn't be expected or necessary.

One possibility is that Timatic is wrong. If the OP wants to pursure this, why not ask the PSB in Wuhan about this directly. It's an off-chance, but there's nothing to lose by asking. Here's the page for submitting questions, with your name in the first box, a heading in the second, then the question itself. You can try simple English.

http://www.whcrj.gov.cn/ask.asp