MSPeconomist

The OP said that KLM took over the ticket, so shouldn't this be KLM's responsibility now?

Ditto

What does it even mean "KLM took over the ticket" ? As OP clearly mentions it was still a DL flight number, was the ticket reissued on 074 stock?
Given that OLCI would have to be done on KL website, was the flight showing there?

seawolf

I don’t think we have the complete picture based on OP posts on which carrier plated the ticket (ticket begin with 006 or 074 or some other carrier).

My understanding is DL issued the original ticket (ticket number begins with 006).

If that understanding is correct, then there is no framework for KL to take over this ticket unless it is IRROPS. If it is IRROPS then there should be no add collect.

As OP appears to mention an add collect for fare difference, DL would have to have handle the change and ensure the PNR is in order.

There is no mechanism to change a 006 to a 074 ticket other than IRROPS.

seawolf

I just re read OP post. It is possible OP reference to DL ticket could very well be a KLM plated 074 ticket issued for a DL flight number from the very beginning.

In that case KL would handle changes and add collect for fare difference. Under this interpretation, this would be wholly the responsibility of KL.

YYCCL3

To answer the ticketing questions:

The ticket was originally 006 DL stock purchased on delta.com. DL support in PRG is still handled by KL. When I made the most recent change through the DL number in PRG (which actually goes to KL), I received an email from KL with a new ticket number which was 074 KL stock. This new eticket had DL coded / KL operated flights on the outbound. My credit card was charged by KLM. The booking showed up on the KLM website under my flying blue account and had a KL record locator.

Off topic: To add insult to injury, the second pre-departure test I had to take due to this screw up came back positive, so now I've had to cancel the whole thing and I'll be stuck here for ?? weeks until I can get a negative test again as it's not only required by NL but also Canada, my final destination. It shows the real risk of travelling anywhere when one end of the journey has a pre-departure test requirement. It is only a minor inconvenience to me as this is my second home and my company is still working 100% remote for now. But I would hate to be someone stuck on a holiday or worse, some third transit country in this predicament. I was infected with the coronavirus before Christmas and recovered, but now I'm in that post-recovery period where it's basically a crapshoot as to whether you'll test positive or negative at any given time. It's why nearly all health authorities tell you not to get tested for the next 90 days after you've recovered, and some countries (like SG, HU, etc) have exemptions for people like this. But not NL or Canada. I'm not planning to go get tested again for at least 2 weeks as hopefully more of the dormant virus fragments will have worked their way out by then.

Ditto

If you indeed had an e-ticket issued by KL, I don't see how they can get away with claiming they aren't responsible, I'm not sure why they didn't just issue the ticket on the KL flight number but that's their problem and not yours.

MSPeconomist

If the OP hasn't told KLM about the positive test, depending on how expensive tests are in Prague, OP could consider the test to be potentially a false positive and try a second test soon to see whether it shows positive or negative. Depending on the type of test (and also the lab, etc.), false positive and false negative rates can be high for some tests (and generally not inaccurate in the same direction by the same amount).

Often1

The simple fact is that when OP found that he could not OLCI, he called KL and was told that everything was in order when it clearly was not. The rest of this is a red herring. Taking OP's statement at face value, he held a valid ticket and reservation, presented himself in a timely manner and was denied boarding.

Had KL properly advised OP when he first called, it might have been KL or DL which :"fixed" the ticket, but there was plenty of time to do it.

With a positive test, the goal should be a thorough medical evaluation. The result could be a false positive, but I would be focused first on health and then on travel.

seawolf

Wow this makes settlement complicated the more exchanges are made and/or ultimately refunded. DL/KL would likely have their own settlement agreement/mechanism instead settling thru IATA.

Since KL literally took it over, it’s all on them for this not getting the PNR in order.

erik123

There was a similar issue discussed on the DL thread - If I recall in that case KL should not have touched the ticket - DL should have just changed and reissued.

seawolf

According to OP's later post, it was a 006 ticket which KL in PRG was able to exchange into a 074 ticket (not IRROPS). It sounds like DL/KL has an agreement to allow for such a exchange transaction to take place. Such a transaction is normally not allowed between airlines.

johan rebel

Bottom line is that somebody screwed up, and it wasn't the OP. Who, how and why is not the OP's problem. He did not get what he paid for, and is therefore owed expenses + denied boarding comp.

Johan

seawolf

As much as passengers want it to be seamless in getting this resolve, KL customer service has demonstrated in the other thread that it doesn't work like that when another airline's ticket is involved.

Granted it's now established this is wholly KL's responsibility as this is a KL ticket and we hope KL will take responsibility.

Had the ticket been a DL ticket, it would have became OP's problem to sort it out as to who is responsible. The other thread mentioned illustrated the back and forth that the other thread's OP had to dealt with between both airlines.

Often1

While that is true in this case, it is not a generalization which one can successfully make. Indeed it falls to the passenger to figure this out, whether one likes it or not.

YYCCL3

Update: KLM replied to the webform that I filled out within 3 days of submitting it. I presented the sequence of events in a factual manner without emotion. They agreed without further question that it was not my fault and will issue denied boarding compensation and reimburse the cost of the second PCR test upon submission of a receipt.

I feel like I will have to work a little more to rebook the flight a bit further out when I can be more confident that I can get a negative test, as neither NL or Canada allow for proof of previous infection/recovery to exempt one from the PCR test requirement.

On the medical side: I'm not sick. I was infected about a month ago. I tested positive at that time, was symptomatic and the symptoms have been gone for over 2 weeks. I've checked with the local health unit and their policy is that unless you develop symptoms again within 90 days of the initial confirmed positive test, you are not considered infected/contagious regardless of a positive test. They advised not to get tested at all, but travel requirements dictate otherwise. I will likely try again late next week to give my system more time to clear out remnants of the viral RNA and to avoid blowing hundreds of dollars on tests. Again, I feel fortunate that this happened to me in a location that is low impact personally and not in some third country.