Baldpacker

Huge props to this guy. Seems like he is a pretty humble and down to earth guy who recognizes how difficult it would be for a non-lawyer to ever receive compensation.

Stranger

Admittedly we don't know much about how the second ticket was bought.

But surely the bulk of the phone conversation with AC etc. had to do with the first ticket. And you would think if AC's fraud dept had an issue with the first purchase, if they are half competent, the same credit card would have continued being blocked by AC. And since the CC issuer had not blocked the card, it has to be that only AC had suspicions.

So I would argue that it is unlikely that he bought the new ticket with AC. I also know that would I be at LIS, and in need of a ticket, my first step would be to go to TP ticketing. TP would have not blacklisted the CC, plus since he was there in person with the CC there would be no suspicion of using a third party card. And the ticket, with first leg on TP, would have been issued on TP stock.

That scenario is reasonable and it provides a reasonable explanation for all the details.

Stranger

I last flew TP late February. Their customer service is still OK, but like every other airline, some things are on a downhill path. The lounge at LIS used to be wonderful; that's gone. Now worse than most MLL.

But I agree that the issue must have been with AC, not TP. BTW I don't recall that they asked my for my CC.

vernonc

Yes, EVA does verify but they have their own method too. I have travelled on EVA a few times and my travel is booked via a OTA with a corporate CC. Never been asked for CC verification.

tcook052

Again quoting from the article:

Ironically, Earle said he used the same credit card to book the last-minute one-way tickets home — with Air Canada — that he used to make the initial booking, with no issues.

Seems fairly clear pax bought the replacement tickets directly from AC over the phone.

vernonc

Huh? The news article specifically quoted the passenger as buying the replacement ticket on AC using the same CC. Is the reporting incorrect or you do not believe it ?

Stranger

The cbc report only says he bought online. I have a hard time believing the AC fraud dept would allow a direct purchase with AC on a card flagged as potentially fraudulent. They may be overly heavy-handed, but hopefully not that incompetent.

The wording in the news could easily refer to flying AC on the second leg.

Buying a ticket "with AC" is kind of vague and could easily mean buying a ticket on a third party site, for flying AC. Makes for a good story though, and do these guys care, or even understand these minor details?

vernonc

Yes but buying on third party TA site still means the ticketing and charge on the CC is done by AC. Example Expedia.
If he purchased on TP with codeshare on AC metal that would be TP charging his CC.

tcook052

Are we actually imagining that pax went to a 3rd party website to book their AC tickets home? That's really reaching as the two most likely ways were over the phone with AC which seems the lost likely or with TP at the check-in gate which seems less likely considering TP agents had basically washed their hands of the pax and their problems telling them to talk to AC.

Guava

He bought online at AC.com for the original tickets.

It would make sense if the whole CC fraud claim is bogus to begin with. There was never any genuine fraud alert because nothing about AC's version of the story makes sense such as not stopping the pax on their first inbound flight when departing from Canada. Even if there were, this is not something the customer couldn't expect to resolve with AC over the phone from LIS. I am going to call into question the veracity of AC's claim based on the available evidences which simply do not support a legitimate claim of fraud check. Though this seems like an easy catch all BS answer when messing up a customer's tickets for X reasons.

However way he purchased the second ticket, it would suggest the CC in question was not blocked. If there was a fraud alert triggered by them being in Portugal for an extensive period of time, then that CC would be suspended by the CC issuer, making it unable to buy anything. Most third party agencies process their airfare purchases directly through the airlines so if the 2nd ticket was bought via an agency to be issued by Air Canada 014 stock, the CC would still have to be processed by Air Canada and will show up on CC statement as an Air Canada purchase. In any event, this tangent is a waste of time. The preponderance of evidences suggest there was no genuine CC fraud alert to begin with, there never was. If this goes to trial, I am confident AC would be "amending" their reasons since it is highly unlikely they can back up their claim.

Here is what I think really happened. The TAP codeshare flight which AC sold through their website had an inventory error. Whatever the customers originally bought was likely mispriced, on the return leg or both. AC only caught the error after the first leg was flown, when they realized they owed TAP much more than what the customer paid for. Unwilling to assume the cost of the error, AC de facto cancelled the rest of the trip unilaterally, but did not document the real reasons. AC front line CS agents were simply unable to find out what was wrong, couldn't explain what happened, which is why they never told the pax about CC fraud alert when he called from a payphone in LIS. In my experience when airlines experience CC problems, they all ask for a 2nd credit card as alternative. It is inconceivable that this was not an option in this case. Therefore, in order for this to make sense, it would lend credence that the customer was never given a chance to deal with that CC fraud alert while in LIS.

To me this case is closed. The very fact AC refuses to pay EU 261 because the plaintiff did not state them in the original claim is all anyone needs to know about how AC treats customers. If it were me, I would likely refuse to settle this case because AC's behavior is egregious and I would be interested in publicly exposing the lies AC made seeing that many customers were likely told of similar stories about the non-existent CC fraud. My only concern is whether Newfoundland allows its residents to sue for damages under EU261 and how they look at moral damages when a corporation behaves badly. In some provinces, their courts may refuse to entertain claims re: EU261 on the basis that it isn't a Canadian or provincial law.

Yes, this is very much true.


Either on the phone, buy with TP directly or log on to AC.com under his profile and just buy the tickets home seem to be easiest way. And whether the CC was really blocked or had a fraud alert can easily be verified by contacting the CC issuer and Visa/MC/AMEX.

jmastron

In a situation like this, it's going to be much better to purchase the replacement ticket from the same airline if at all possible -- increases the chances of getting all your money back.

If you buy a new last minute ticket from another airline, and the first airline claims they only need to refund the lower original price, you have no recourse against the new airline's charge that they're entitled to, and have to fight with the original airline for more cash.

On the other hand, if you have a paid ticket on an airline, with a later charge to fly the same (or similar) flights due to the airline's mistake, it'll be pretty clear that the airline is not entitled to that later charge. In many cases a credit card chargeback will succeed, and a lawsuit (as the passenger here did) is very clear cut too.

WR Cage

Under the assumption that AC issued an IATA compliant air carrier ticket, then yes the TP checkin agent would have access to the pax credit card information under the "Form of Payment" field (this would be on the ticketing screens but not on the standard screens for checkin). This has existed since the days of paper tickets.

In current PCI compliant standards the TP checkin agent would be able to verify the type of credit card used (e.g. VI for Visa), the last four digits of the credit number, and the name of the card holder. This is all documented in the IATA Ticketing Handbook section 2.14. The recent handbook edits allow for electronic and paper tickets to omit the first 12 numbers of the credit card. Also, IIRC tokenization of the credit card data is not allowed because the third party airline cannot access the token system to retrieve the relevant data.

Given the above, I believe it is possible for the TP checkin agent to conduct a credit card verification without direction from AC. For example by asking for the pax to produce the VI/MC/AX credit card ending in 1234. I have had this done in Europe at either a train station or airport, however as this was a non event (i had the credit card with me) I can't remember where exactly this occurred.

The question remains whether AC could issue a request/requirement for TP checkin desk to a conduct credit card verification without manually going into the file a suspending or cancelling the ticket. Manual intervention would require the AC Fraud dept to document the incident in their files. Additionally, AC fraud dept would/should/could block the credit card number from being used to purchase another ticket.

Stranger

If the first leg is on TP the latter seems more likely. In addition to AC possibly/presumably denying his CC.

Stranger

TP agents having washed their hands on the original ticket does not mean TP would not sell them another ticket.

Seems more likely to me than AC selling them another ticket on a credit card which AC claims was flagged for potential fraud.

Guava

There is no CC verification requested in LIS either in person with TP or via phone with AC, zip, none, nada, nein. Stop misdirecting this thread towards a completely irrelevant tangent, this is uncalled for.