s0ssos

Well, I don't know if you can do TWOV at SZX. But if you were able to, regardless of what TIMATIC said, it would make the airline be wrong.
Your argument is one of practicality, but it doesn't justify wrong information. If you believe it is ok to use wrong information, then you essentially let the agent make all decisions. They can in essence be an embassy, denying people the right to travel to certain places. I don't think they have that power, and does anybody give them that power. As such, they are enforcement, and their authority is derived from somewhere else.
But I find it hilarious how, in this day and age, nobody can find anything online (probably because people here don't read/type Chinese), but you can actually go to SZX and just ask them yourself at the airport.

garykung

Regardless how Timatic says, things are complicated when you enter China from Shenzhen. The TWOV policy of Shenzhen is unfortunately not really as official as other published ports like PVG, PEK, or CAN.

My only question to OP is why not booking KUL-HKG?

GenevaFlyer

It's not just about practicality. The agent is not empowered to make a decision which could be wrong. The airline will be liable if the passenger is rejected by the Chinese authorities, and the employee who checked them in would be blamed. As such, is the employee going to take the risk to go against the information that is available to them?

GenevaFlyer

Often1

You misunderstand the reason air carriers care about document requirements in the first place.

It is the carrier's responsibility to assure that each passenger is properly documented for arrival at the onward destination. When a passenger without proper documents arrived, the carrier may be fined a substantial amount of money and be responsible for the security costs associated with holding the passenger for the flight back to the origin, as well as the cost of transporting the passenger back to the origin. While the carrier may collect the fines and costs from the passenger, you can imagine that this is far from a sure thing.

If it were not for these consequences, the carrier could care less.

To avoid fines, carriers subscribe to IATA's TIMATIC service, IATA gathers data from each country, China included. Whether the published exception for SZX is a failure of the Chinese government to provide proper information to IATA or IATA's failure to update TIMATIC or whether the published policy is correct in TIMATIC, but China does not enforce it, is speculation here on FT.

Do not expect low-level air carrier employees to vary from TIMATIC. If TIMATIC is incorrect, they won't be disciplined.

If indeed TIMATIC is incorrect, the route is for people to complain to their respective carriers that it is incorrect. IATA is a trade group supported by the carriers and the carriers can pressure IATA to correct TIMATIC.

But, if you believe that the carruer is "playing" embassy, you are wrong. Carriers are acting to protect themselves from fines and other logistical issues.

s0ssos

No, I understand all that. But I don't think you understand that is very consumer-unfriendly. There is absolutely no benefit gained for the carrier to try to actually verify anything the consumer says. They only stand to gain from not allowing a customer to board (save on weight).
There needs to be a lawsuit, or legislation passed, to ensure carriers play fair. If you look at the years past in the US when carriers just kept passengers on the tarmac for hours on end ... Why did they do that? Because there is no reason for them not to. They actually don't care how passengers feel. In the same way the agent could care less, reflecting how the carrier could care less, whether a passenger gets on the plane or not.
So, I guess it'll remain this way until a VIP, or unfortunate person, changes it.

shuigao

And what, in your opinion, does "playing fair" mean?

Ignore TIMATIC, which is the central, authoritative database for visa requirements created and maintained by IATA, and defer to the check-in agent's discretion and skill (or lack thereof) in searching embassy websites?

Do you propose that carriers train up every single member of their check-in agents (including contractors at outstations) to be experts at worldwide immigration laws? In this particular case, not even FT members (i.e. aviation enthusiasts) were able to definitely find proof of visa-free transit being available at SZX.

exwannabe

If the airline flies a pax who can not enter, then they have to return him for free. AND many counties assert they can fine the airline.

The reason for the fine is to force airlines to handle this so that customs does not have as many problems.

Every country will actually allow some to enter w/o proper papers. But there is a risk that they will not. Why should an airline take this risk?

The idea they just kick off pax to save fuel is idiotic.

The only laws that apply here would be the contract of carriage. Those terms are clear. If the pax "appears" to not have proper documentation he can be denied boarding. A lawsuit would be less than futile.

s0ssos

What does "authoritative" mean? Does it mean it is the law?
What I mean is if the airline unjustly denied a passenger boarding they should face a penalty. Otherwise what incentive do they have in boarding passengers?

exwannabe

The airline has a contract with you.

In this case, it asserts the OP could be denied boarding if it appears he does not have proper documentation. The OP did not appear to have such, and was denied.

OK, reality is the CoC is piece of toilet paper. What counts is customer service. With low cost airlines, you get less. end of story.

s0ssos

Yea. To answer someone else's question of why the OP flew through China instead of direct: cost. It was cheaper. That's the only reason I can think of.

nanyang

Trying to make money in the future as well?

s0ssos

Naw, there's a sucker born every second

smattiso

I was in SZX and I was able to do the TWOV easily. So were many others. I agree the wording is strange on most of these websites and explicitly say that SZX is exempt from the TWOV, which is not true any more. From what I can tell you are allowed to use a TWOV for ANY airport in China at this point as long as you stay within the 24 hour ruling. Now whether or not you can achieve this in practice is another question. I will see what I can accomplish. Regardless lesson learned I guess...

irishguy28

The pax wasn't even transiting.

By buying a standalone KUL-SZX ticket, AirAsia are required to consider him not as a transit passenger but as a passenger entering China.

lolstebbo

Sorta. The problem is there is no official documentation stating that TWOV at SZX is permitted. As long as you have verification that you have a flight departing to a country other than that of where you came from, you're considered a transit passenger as long as you're transiting through a port designated as TWOV-eligible which, it doesn't matter of OP succeeded at doing it before, SZX isn't officially and explicitly documented as being TWOV-eligible.