Couple 'flabbergasted' after AC suspends tickets charging $6K to return from Portugal
#196
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,803
That;s ot what the other poster was saying. But makes sense.
Not so quick.
First, this is now the third report of cases where the (new?) AC fraud dept stood in the way of somewhat traveling. AC claims that's what the issue was too.
Second, this is *the AC fraud dept,* not the CC fraud dept. Which would get into action before the CC is deemed to be compromised by the CC issuer. Precisely to avoid a situation where someone buys a ticket fraudulently and flies. With the true card holder later filing a complaint, the charge getting reversed and the airline being on the hook.
That seems to me the only possible rationale for AC having set up a fraud detection mechanism. Probably too many cases...
Indeed. Would be AC anticipating a situation where the charge would have been reversed after they had flown. Not a blocked CC.
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.
First, this is now the third report of cases where the (new?) AC fraud dept stood in the way of somewhat traveling. AC claims that's what the issue was too.
Second, this is *the AC fraud dept,* not the CC fraud dept. Which would get into action before the CC is deemed to be compromised by the CC issuer. Precisely to avoid a situation where someone buys a ticket fraudulently and flies. With the true card holder later filing a complaint, the charge getting reversed and the airline being on the hook.
That seems to me the only possible rationale for AC having set up a fraud detection mechanism. Probably too many cases...
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.
#197
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: YYC
Programs: AC Basic, UA MP Gold, Marriott Gold Elite, SPG Gold, Amex Platinum
Posts: 3,008
At the corporate level, I was involved in one BC Office of the Privacy Commissioner inquiry as to whether the Okanagan Avis/Budget franchise could photocopy and require both the drivers license and credit card for purposes of performing the credit card verification.
In all theses corporate and personal instances, I found the vast number of credit card verifications are initiated by customer service clerks and cashiers thinking they are doing a service for the customer or protecting the company's assets. Also in all instances where there was a large company, the corporate office did not sanction the clerks actions and there was no corporate policy to conduct credit card verifications. However small companies and NPOs did subscribe to the unofficial processes.
So yes, perhaps my own personal and professional experiences are colouring the view of the subject incident.
#198
The information is contained in the CBC story in post #1 , it helps if you actually read it: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...lict-1.4115596
It's pretty clear you don't even have a basic grasp of the facts.
And the relevance of previous reports of such fraud detection to the case at hand is what exactly?
I am well aware of such process since I have been on the receiving end of such charge back before, I can assure you. This kind of cases is a concern for the merchant as the rules of VISA/MC/AMEX are heavily in favor of the card holders as long as the cardholder claims the charge was not authorized by him/her. So yes, I can appreciate why AC or any airlines would be rather careful about these chargebacks. I also know in this kind of cases, CS is duty bound to contact the affected customers and try to resolve the situation, not unilaterally cancel the contract. While the TorStar article used "suspended", the original CBC article clearly used "cancelled":
Fraud detection does not summarily cancel a partially flown ticket. Doing so could potentially be stranding actual customers overseas and that would be a major no no for any competent airline. If fraud is suspected, verification needs to be performed. The cardholder can be contacted based on the information provided by the CC issuer, not whatever the passenger filled in online, including their address. If no verification has been performed even on a genuinely suspected fraud, then the company cannot use it as a legitimate defense since the merchant has a duty to validate that information before summarily cancelling a contract. Since AC clearly did not do that and did not inform the stranded pax while they were in LIS, giving them a chance to address the airline's concerns, there is no reason to believe fraud was the real cause of the ticket cancellation. Suspicion of credit card fraud is not difficult to resolve when airline has a chance to intercept and validate the identity of the passenger especially when the card member is one of the passengers.
That explanation still does not make sense, the ticket was already partially used at that point.
This is not a case where things could go either way. AC has no credibility here.
Originally Posted by CBC
In December, Earle and his wife Claudia booked a five-week round trip from St. John's to Portugal through Air Canada's website for about $2,400. They paid by credit card.
Second, this is *the AC fraud dept,* not the CC fraud dept. Which would get into action before the CC is deemed to be compromised by the CC issuer. Precisely to avoid a situation where someone buys a ticket fraudulently and flies. With the true card holder later filing a complaint, the charge getting reversed and the airline being on the hook.
Originally Posted by CBC
"We go to check in, and we were told, 'Air Canada has cancelled your ticket. You have to go to customer care,'" he said.
Earle said they spent the next three hours getting the runaround from airport agents. Multiple calls on a pay phone to Air Canada and Star Alliance's customer care lines didn't resolve matters.
Earle said they spent the next three hours getting the runaround from airport agents. Multiple calls on a pay phone to Air Canada and Star Alliance's customer care lines didn't resolve matters.
Originally Posted by Stranger
Indeed. Would be AC anticipating a situation where the charge would have been reversed after they had flown. Not a blocked CC.
This is not a case where things could go either way. AC has no credibility here.
#199
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,446
#200
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,803
The information is contained in the CBC story in post #1 , it helps if you actually read it: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...lict-1.4115596
It's pretty clear you don't even have a basic grasp of the facts.
It's pretty clear you don't even have a basic grasp of the facts.
We had been talking about the second, *new* ticket. No argument that the original one was bought on aircanada.com.
BTW no point in using language like that. Does not help keeping the discussion civilized.
And the relevance of previous reports of such fraud detection to the case at hand is what exactly?
I am well aware of such process since I have been on the receiving end of such charge back before, I can assure you. This kind of cases is a concern for the merchant as the rules of VISA/MC/AMEX are heavily in favor of the card holders as long as the cardholder claims the charge was not authorized by him/her. So yes, I can appreciate why AC or any airlines would be rather careful about these chargebacks. I also know in this kind of cases, CS is duty bound to contact the affected customers and try to resolve the situation, not unilaterally cancel the contract. While the TorStar article used "suspended", the original CBC article clearly used "cancelled":
As to "suspended" vs. "cancelled," in the heading cbc.com also uses "suspended." I guess "cancelled" sound more dramatic. But can we really trust a newspaper article to be that careful with words?