Originally Posted by
Ditto
traveldocs isn't a "random website", neither is timatic, yet both could be wrong/outdated sometimes and yet both are the sources used by airlines.
Unless you suggest the checkin agent should call "The country of Argentina" to check the eligibility of each pax?
If OP would have checked traveldocs prior to travelling the IDB could have been avoided with a simple printout from the embassy website etc. showing his eligibility to travel, now all that remains is to try and get compensation.
You now appear to be suggesting that the onus is on the passenger to (a) know which entry eligibility system the airline will be using, (b) verify this system's accuracy and (c) carry with them documentation sufficient to convince the airline agent that their system is wrong. There is so much wrong with this apologist attitude, I don't even know where to start...
1) No, the check-in agent should not "call Argentina" to check the pax's eligibility. The check-in agent should rely on the tools offered to them by their employer. In this case KLM chose to support its staff with Traveldoc (NOT Traveldoc
s, I believe).
2) No, the pax should not be expected to know what eligibility system a given airline uses, nor should they be expected to pre-verify their eligibility using that particular system prior to their travel.
3) Even if the passenger were to pre-verify their eligibility, find the airline's system has erroneous information and collect supporting documentation to counter this erroneous information... why would you expect the airline's agent to trust a bunch of printouts a passenger brings to the airport?!?! That's not their job. They are not immigration lawyer. This is why they are provided with a simple tool, where you enter the required info and get either a green light or a red light.
4) Pax paid KLM for carriage. KLM paid Traveldoc for the eligibility service. Traveldoc "malfunctioned", resulting in KLM incorrectly denying boarding to the pax. That's right, INCORRECTLY, because KLM is not supposed to deny carriage to an individual just because a website tells them to. They can deny carriage, if the pax is truly ineligible for entry to the destination country. KLM rightly chooses to rely on the eligibility service instead of having a horde of immigration lawyers at their check-in counters, but by doing so it accepts the risk that the service may on rare occasions be wrong. This risk materialized itself and KLM is now liable to the pax for unjustified IDB. Subject to terms of their contract, KLM may be able to go after Traveldoc to recover some of the cost of servicing KLM's liability to the pax.
I'll stop here...