Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Other Asian, Australian, and South Pacific Airlines
Reload this Page >

Improperly denied boarding or not? Legal question China visa etc.

Improperly denied boarding or not? Legal question China visa etc.

Old Jun 30, 2017, 1:00 pm
  #16  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PVG, FRA, SEA, HEL
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 4,783
I think you do not only want to get the ticket KUL-SZX, but also the Xiamen Air ticket SZX-SEA refunded as a minimum.

Of course, Air Asia won't do a thing to refund you anything.

You have to try to get the name of the agent who wrongfully denied you boarding. Maybe this chap is still working at KUL.
There are means in Malaysia to collect the money directly from this chap - leaving Air Asia out of the game.

Another option would be to get hold of Tony Fernandes. He is probably quite often into the US. They you may try to catch him with legal means.
warakorn is offline  
Old Jun 30, 2017, 1:04 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: YVR, HNL
Programs: AS 75k, UA peon, BA Bronze, AC E50k, Marriott Plat, HH Diamond, Fairmont Plat (RIP)
Posts: 7,818
Yup, Timatic excludes SZX from TWOV:

Visa required.

Passengers transiting only are exempt from holding a visa when:
Holders of confirmed onward air, cruise or train tickets for a max. transit time of 24 hours. Transit incl. multiple stops within China (People's Rep.), with a total transit time of max. 24 hours, is permitted. They must travel to a third country.

Transit without visa (TWOV) is not possible at Fuzhou (FOC), Mudanjiang (MDG), Shenzhen (SZX) and Yanji (YNJ).


Not sure you can hold the airline responsible for this when they checked the source they are required to use and that source told them you needed a visa.

Where (official source) does it say that SZX now offers TWOV? The link the OP posted (http://www.hongdaservice.com/blog/ne...reign-visitors) is just a blog that says "According to a spokesperson from Shenzhen Airport Group Co. their are plans to roll out the 72-hour visa-free entry policy to new arrivals at Shenzhen Bao'An International Airport within the first half of 2016.". Seems far from an official source and only talks about plans.

Last edited by Finkface; Jun 30, 2017 at 1:12 pm
Finkface is offline  
Old Jun 30, 2017, 1:52 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SJC/SFO
Posts: 295
Originally Posted by GenevaFlyer
That may well be, but if Timatic is not updated, as the system of reference for all airlines, an airline can still refuse boarding based on what is in Timatic.

Cheers,

GenevaFlyer
If that's the case, OP should go after IATA for compensation?
khlay is offline  
Old Jun 30, 2017, 5:27 pm
  #19  
Hilton Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: 38,000 feet
Programs: LH HON, BA GGL, AF Plat, EK Plat
Posts: 6,423
Originally Posted by khlay
If that's the case, OP should go after IATA for compensation?
Op's issue is with the airline, the airline can then take it up with Timatic.
nufnuf77 is offline  
Old Jun 30, 2017, 7:33 pm
  #20  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SJC/SFO
Posts: 295
Originally Posted by nufnuf77
Op's issue is with the airline, the airline can then take it up with Timatic.
That's what I think, too.

Originally Posted by GenevaFlyer
That may well be, but if Timatic is not updated, as the system of reference for all airlines, an airline can still refuse boarding based on what is in Timatic.
Don't think they "CAN"
Airline should be responsible since they decided to use information from 3rd party database rather than Department of foreign affairs PROC.

Don't think there is a law/regulation force them using Timatic
khlay is offline  
Old Jun 30, 2017, 7:35 pm
  #21  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Programs: QANTAS FREQUENT FLYER, VIRGIN VELOCITY
Posts: 5
I was almost refused boarding at KIX by JAL a couple years back when the transit rule was just introduced but to their credit it was worked out after about an hour.
pkjames is offline  
Old Jun 30, 2017, 8:39 pm
  #22  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ATL
Programs: Delta PlM, 1M
Posts: 6,362
Originally Posted by khlay
That's what I think, too.



Don't think they "CAN"
Airline should be responsible since they decided to use information from 3rd party database rather than Department of foreign affairs PROC.

Don't think there is a law/regulation force them using Timatic
And there is no law or regulation that prevents the airlines from using TIMATIC (which is a service provided by IATA as the formal source for airlines to use in this matter).

Anyway, the legal authority is whatever their CoC says. And my guess is they word that in their favor.
exwannabe is offline  
Old Jun 30, 2017, 11:39 pm
  #23  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AMS
Programs: A number, but no status no more
Posts: 3,049
Originally Posted by khlay
That's what I think, too.



Don't think they "CAN"
Airline should be responsible since they decided to use information from 3rd party database rather than Department of foreign affairs PROC.

Don't think there is a law/regulation force them using Timatic
Would you want check-in agents to spend hours checking each individual country where one of their passengers may be going to get up to date information? Or would you go with the industry-standard to optimize the process?

Sometimes, Timatic information is out-of-date or badly worded, but, IATA member countries have a responsibility to update Timatic information IIRC. So maybe the OP should go after the PROC for not updating IATA?

GenevaFlyer
GenevaFlyer is offline  
Old Jul 1, 2017, 8:07 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SJC/SFO
Posts: 295
Originally Posted by GenevaFlyer
Would you want check-in agents to spend hours checking each individual country where one of their passengers may be going to get up to date information? Or would you go with the industry-standard to optimize the process?

GenevaFlyer
They can go with the easy way. It's all up to them. In the same time, they should be responsible for their decision.


BTW, I can find the VISA requirement in 5 min. How many countries they fly to? Have an employee spending couple hours verifying the information once a while is that hard?
khlay is offline  
Old Jul 1, 2017, 9:06 am
  #25  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AMS
Programs: A number, but no status no more
Posts: 3,049
Originally Posted by khlay
They can go with the easy way. It's all up to them. In the same time, they should be responsible for their decision.


BTW, I can find the VISA requirement in 5 min. How many countries they fly to? Have an employee spending couple hours verifying the information once a while is that hard?
Is it just about the countries they fly to? What about transiting to another airline to reach another destination country?

And in those 5 minutes, is it information as published by the relevant authorities in the destination country? Not doubting you, but I know some countries make it difficult to find the right information, especially for transits.

GenevaFlyer
GenevaFlyer is offline  
Old Jul 1, 2017, 10:40 am
  #26  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: YVR, HNL
Programs: AS 75k, UA peon, BA Bronze, AC E50k, Marriott Plat, HH Diamond, Fairmont Plat (RIP)
Posts: 7,818
Originally Posted by GenevaFlyer
Is it just about the countries they fly to? What about transiting to another airline to reach another destination country?

And in those 5 minutes, is it information as published by the relevant authorities in the destination country? Not doubting you, but I know some countries make it difficult to find the right information, especially for transits.

GenevaFlyer
Agreed. Timatic still shows SZX excluded from 24hr TWOV. I still haven't seen an answer to my post upthread (see below). Can someone post an official source (not a blog or some guy says.....but an official source that an airline could rely on) that shows that 24hr TWOV is valid at SZX?

Originally Posted by Finkface
Yup, Timatic excludes SZX from TWOV:

Visa required.

Passengers transiting only are exempt from holding a visa when:
Holders of confirmed onward air, cruise or train tickets for a max. transit time of 24 hours. Transit incl. multiple stops within China (People's Rep.), with a total transit time of max. 24 hours, is permitted. They must travel to a third country.

Transit without visa (TWOV) is not possible at Fuzhou (FOC), Mudanjiang (MDG), Shenzhen (SZX) and Yanji (YNJ).


Not sure you can hold the airline responsible for this when they checked the source they are required to use and that source told them you needed a visa.

Where (official source) does it say that SZX now offers TWOV? The link the OP posted (http://www.hongdaservice.com/blog/ne...reign-visitors) is just a blog that says "According to a spokesperson from Shenzhen Airport Group Co. their are plans to roll out the 72-hour visa-free entry policy to new arrivals at Shenzhen Bao'An International Airport within the first half of 2016.". Seems far from an official source and only talks about plans.
Finkface is offline  
Old Jul 1, 2017, 11:40 am
  #27  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: AVL
Posts: 216
Originally Posted by Martina70
He said American... which means a citizen of the USA.
This is funny.
TravelingBear is offline  
Old Jul 1, 2017, 12:01 pm
  #28  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Originally Posted by GenevaFlyer
Is it just about the countries they fly to? What about transiting to another airline to reach another destination country?

And in those 5 minutes, is it information as published by the relevant authorities in the destination country? Not doubting you, but I know some countries make it difficult to find the right information, especially for transits.

GenevaFlyer
That is the purpose of TIMATIC which is a service IATA provides to its member airlines and which passengers can access without fee through a variety of websites, UA being the generally most reliably available portal.

There are a lot more than TWOV at SZX issues to worry about and that's why carriers pay IATA to keep TIMATIC up to date.

Even in the EU which has the toughest compensation laws in the world in most situations, EC 261/2004 would not likely consider it unreasonable if a carrier denies boarding based on the language of TIMATIC.

No matter what you think, it's best to check TIMATIC. If you think that TIMATIC is wrong, you are going to have a fight convincing any carrier not to abide by it, but whatever chance you have is best dealt with in advance.
Often1 is offline  
Old Jul 1, 2017, 12:03 pm
  #29  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AMS
Programs: A number, but no status no more
Posts: 3,049
Originally Posted by Finkface
Agreed. Timatic still shows SZX excluded from 24hr TWOV. I still haven't seen an answer to my post upthread (see below). Can someone post an official source (not a blog or some guy says.....but an official source that an airline could rely on) that shows that 24hr TWOV is valid at SZX?
Here's information on the website of the Chinese embassy in Australia:

http://au.china-embassy.org/eng/ls/vfc/t1038742.htm

I don't see SZX listed, but on the other hand, they seem to say 24-hour transit is ok without limitations.

GenevaFlyer
GenevaFlyer is offline  
Old Jul 1, 2017, 12:14 pm
  #30  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: YVR, HNL
Programs: AS 75k, UA peon, BA Bronze, AC E50k, Marriott Plat, HH Diamond, Fairmont Plat (RIP)
Posts: 7,818
Originally Posted by GenevaFlyer
Here's information on the website of the Chinese embassy in Australia:

http://au.china-embassy.org/eng/ls/vfc/t1038742.htm

I don't see SZX listed, but on the other hand, they seem to say 24-hour transit is ok without limitations.

GenevaFlyer
So a low-cost airline based in Malaysia, boarding a US citizen at KUL for travel to China is supposed to disregard Timatic and somehow, miraculously find a poorly written page on the website for the Chinese Embassy for Australia from 2013 when 24 hr TWOV wasn't even allowed at SZX, that doesn't even specifically address the issue? How far are we going to reach to try to fault the airline, here?

Can anyone post an official source that says that 24hr TWOV is now allowed at SZX? One that Air Asia at KUL could have relied on and was obvious enough that they could easily have found it? Did the OP supply them with an official source to check other than this blog that said there were 'plans' to roll it out sometime in 2016?

Last edited by Finkface; Jul 1, 2017 at 12:22 pm
Finkface is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.