IAN-UK

You're being disingenuous. There is no ambiguity at all in the OP's terminolgy.

America is the name of a continent and the demotic term used to identify the USA. Peru is never referred to as America, neither is Canada. There's a long etcetera

In the same way an American is the everyday term for citizen of the USA. For a Peruvian to refer to himself/herself as American would be odd. ditto Canadians etc. Perhaps Puerto Ricans get a choice

davidj1

Look at the reverse... ITA info says okay to travel, pax arrives and is denied entry into the country. Airline is liable for return of pax and penalty. Is the airline going to refuse to pay the penalty and deny any responsibility because ITA "told me to do it". Of course not.

And in similar fashion the airline is liable if they incorrectly deny boarding when pax is legally able to enter and immigrate into a country.

While using ITA is a "standard" doesn't make it right or wrong. Airlines relying on ITA are relying on a third party which is like playing Chinese whispers. They largely get it right but can get it wrong at times and airlines end of the day are responsible where THEY source this information and THEIR decision made based on that source (right or wrong). The Airline-ITA relationship has nothing legally to do with the Airline-pax contract.

Moral of the story is bring official immigration documents or statutes with you while travelling to back your eligibility to travel in case you need to challenge the airline and their potentially inaccurate source.

exwannabe

Disagree strongly.

TIMITAC is created by the airlines as a group to have an accurate and consistent database. It is far better than having each airline check their own private database (which for any airline that interlines would need to include every country in the world).

It is true that the airline can not point the finger at IATA for any customer liability. But the airlines will make far less mistakes this way than if vetting on an ad-hoc basis.

Printing out sources off web pages (even embassies) can be much less accurate. Often they are simplified, and not the entire rule set.

If one really wants to be safe, print the TIMITAC screen which shows you are allowed to enter/transit.

BTW, in this case (and presume many others) the COC does not make the airlines liable for making the wrong decision. It says the pax can be denied if he "appears" not to have valid documents.

jiejie

This thread seems to have wandered all over the place, long on speculation and supposition, short on reality. For clarity:

The OP was properly denied boarding and doesn't have a leg to stand on if trying to seek redress. Full stop. Shenzhen is currently and explicitly prohibited from TWOV and it was not an oversight nor is TIMATIC outdated. The situation is not the choice of SZX airport authority nor Shenzhen City. It has to do with rival city politics and commercial protectionism.

TWOV for 24 hours is permitted at any Chinese airport that has international incoming/outgoing flights, except those that are specifically excluded. SZX being one of these few. TWOV is available for longer periods (72 or 144 hours) at specific airports (listed in TIMATIC) for specific nationalities (also listed in TIMATIC). TWOV at any Chinese airport is not available at this time to certain nationalities (listed in TIMATIC).

For those who are trying to argue the point about "direct transit" as something different from "TWOV" because of the possibility of routing through different queues at the airport---Wrong. Under Chinese regulation, this is all TWOV. As someone said above, there aren't that many airports/terminals in the PRC that are set up for direct transit anyway.

For those who are trying to argue that TWOV is only supposed to be applicable if journey is on one ticket---Wrong. Two tickets are acceptable as long as the timing sequence and onward-to-3rd-country destination requirements are met. Some Asian LCC's have been known to argue this point and refuse boarding without a Chinese visa. Had the OP been flying to a different PRC city for the transit connection such as CAN or PVG, then yes, OP would have grounds to complain about an unjustified denial of boarding.

I'm not sure why the OP feels that he was previously allowed to do a standard TWOV at SZX. More details would have to be provided to ascertain exactly what took place.

davistev

MMM - I lived in Canada and the USA for 20+ years. When asked - I always say I lived in America for over 20 years covering both countries.

Myyra

For the purposes of this thread, it's good to mention that Airasia is not a member of IATA. Also, if you look up the passport & visa requirements system used by Airasia, you will see that it is in fact not Timatic but something else. And of course, this is moot point with jiejie's explanation of the SZX transit in #79 .

jiejie

Good points about Air Asia. But in this instance, whatever Air Asia is basing their information on and however they choose to format it, they seem to have the correct information. Using their website and entering a KUL-SZX one way for a USA passport holder without a visa, the information correctly comes up that a visa is required. But entering the same for KUL-CAN, the information also comes up that a visa is required, but correctly informs the reader of the TWOV exception and conditions.

In recent memory, when it comes to Asian LCCs for China TWOV's that have been set up correctly in accordance with Chinese regulations, I think Air Asia has been less of a problem with improperly denied boarding than say, Scoot and Tiger Airways.

Myyra

I was prepared for a fight checking in with Cebu Pacific at Bacolod, flying on to MNL & PVG, intending to use the 144 TWOV. To my pleasant surprise, the agent proceeded to issue my boarding passes without any hesitation whatsoever.

IAN-UK

Sure, but if you had been asked about your citizenship during any of those 20+ years you'd probably have felt obliged to give a different, more specific answer.

Unless, of course, you are indeed American

shuigao

Interesting. As someone who used to live in the USA (not any more), I would have never imagined that someone living in Canada would say "I live in America"