Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Second aircraft: Widebody Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Oceanic
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Oceanic
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I called RJJJ center to confirm the route of flight of aircraft X as it did not match the location of where we were showing the aircraft to be located. RJJJ confirmed the route of flight and update the profile to show correctly. I asked the RJJJ controller to send me the [flight plans] on the flights now so I could make a transfer to Manila in accordance with our Letter Of Agreement (LOA). The controller informed me that they were going to transfer the flights to Manila and it would be an information transfer to us. I confirmed by asking 'Are you going to transfer them to Manila' I did not use any call signs when asking them this and they confirmed my question. I called Manila to do a transfer on a flight; after the initial coordination was rejected by the Manila Controller; I asked if they had received the transfers of aircraft X and aircraft Y from RJJJ. The Manila controller confirmed they had and I asked if they had also received aircraft Y and aircraft Z. Manila said they had not received the transfer yet. I tried to call RJJJ back to ensure they would transfer the last two company flights as well as request control to climb a different flight from 33;000 feet to 34;000 feet to comply with Manila's request. RJJJ did not answer as I assumed they were busy with their traffic. I called Manila back to transfer the other aircraft with the altitude Manila had requested; but did not ask them if they had received the last two company flights. As I gave a briefing to a relieving controller I mentioned to him that all four company flights were an info transfer to us and RJJJ would transfer flights to Manila. Later I heard the recording of the relieving controller and RJJJ discussing whether or not aircraft Y and aircraft Z had been transfer to Manila. Both parties were under the assumption that the other one would do it. He called Manila to transfer aircraft Y and aircraft Z roughly 5 minutes and 15 minutes from the Flight Information Region (FIR) which was in violation of our LOA.Next time standard ICAO phraseology should be used as well as using the aircraft callsigns when coordinating. By saying 'them' instead of each specific callsign; there was confusion as to who 'them' was referring to.


Second narrative: Aircraft Y was in flight. The aircraft was just clipping our corner. I was informed by the previous controller that the 4 company flights are information transferred to us and Tokyo Center will transfer to Manila Center. Tokyo Center called to verify that I was transferring 2 of the 4 company flights. I told Tokyo negative that they are doing it as stated by the previous controller. I jumped on the phone and called Manila to verify all 4 company flights. Manila only had 2; so I immediately transferred the other 2. The closest aircraft was 7 minutes from the boundary and the required transfer time is 30 minutes.It needs to be clearly stated that Tokyo will transfer the aircraft and not us. Specific call signs need to be used and not the company flights. Language barrier played a role in this event.


Synopsis: The KZAK/ZOA Oceanic Controllers are supposed to transfer flight plan information of aircraft entering Manila's airspace 30 minutes prior to the Flight Information Region (FIR). A KZAK Oceanic controller thought he coordinated with the Tokyo controllers that the Tokyo Controller would forward the information to Manila on four flights. The Tokyo Controller thought they were only forwarding information on two flights. A subsequent KZAK Oceanic Controller and Tokyo Controller coordinated information and realized that Tokyo had only passed information on two flights. The KZAK Controller coordinated the other two flights five and fifteen minutes from the Manila FIR. The Letter of Agreement states the information needs to be passed to Manila 30 minutes from the FIR.