Cargojon

Funny that OP mentioned Citi was the credit card company. I have never been able to get my Citi card to book a UA ticket on .bomb, it always hangs up at the fraud protection part....despite evetything being 100% legit.

Probably unrelated to this, but these two in conjuction with one another always seem to mess something up.

RNE

When a credit card company suspects fraud, it doesn't automatically assume its customer is in cahoots. Airlines do.

transportbiz

This is the 3rd or 20th such issue raised here recently about United's oh so powerful and never failing technology, perhaps making a mistake and causing some rather unfortunate outcomes. I think before United does anything as drastic as canceling, tickets, or closing people's accounts there should be a fair hearing process.

bmwe92fan

This makes sense to 99% of the population - unfortunately it doesn't to UA - I've had my share of run-in's with UA's "fraud prevention" department - none of them positive. Their charter is to protect UA - not the consumer...

Often1

The takeaway here is that UA has joined AA in upping its anti-fraud game and is clearly willing to lose some customers in the process.

The other two recent threads (Guatemala GS and Israeli educational charity) both involved OP's who admitted violations of the T&C of MP or COC. Taken at face value both lacked evil intent, but that doesn't really matter.

Unfortunately for OP, not only was this a third-party, but it was a one-way ticket originating in one of the highest fraud regions in the world.

All OP can do here is fight for his $104 and perhaps some customer service gesture. A DOT complaint won't really help because DOT is right with the carriers on anti-fraud measures. But, OP can certainly file one.

cova

I guess the moral of the story is to have two airline CCs - one used only for booking tickets and taxes with that airline, and another for everything else.

bmwe92fan

I wish it was that simple! With my Amex as the only excpetion - EVERY other credit card I possess - without exception - has been replaced in the last year due to some type of fraud / incompetence internally - discover, mastercard, visa- all of them have had issues - you would think UA would know this before just cancelling OP's flights and saying - "Oh so sorry I'm more worried about my bottom than yours"....

ftweb

This is a bit of a tangent, but with Citi you have to use virtual account numbers to buy plane tickets on United. It's frankly a bit bizarre. United is probably the single biggest expense on my credit card each year, with over 50% of my charges going to United. And yet somehow, whenever I bought tickets--even in my own name--I would get calls from Citibank checking that this wasn't fraudulent behavior. This was particularly problematic if I missed the call.

I'm curious what specific fraud they are concerned about. Suppose someone did fraudulently buy a ticket in my name. Presumably they would then cancel the ticket and pay the change fee to use the value for a different ticket for a different person? Maybe a different person who paid them cash for the ticket? But at that point, wouldn't the person perpetrating the fraud be traceable through the payment of the change fee, and the person flying the itinerary be traceable through the government issued ID check?

Anyway, after switching to the virtual account numbers I have not had the problem a single time. It is more annoying to have to log into Citi's web site in addition to United, and to have to cut and paste from the annoying flash plugin. But at least the problem is solved.

eefor jfp

Agree that this should never have happened (for $0.20) and that United should work very hard to make amends to the OP. Also agree that filing a DOT complaint might help, even if it just adds to the small pressure to make the airlines' fraud departments more customer friendly.

I've also had numerous problems with Citi (perhaps a separate topic) when buying plane tickets from international airlines (Turkish, British, etc.) It's a real pain and I usually now use Amex or Chase; Citi doesn't seem to have good algorithms in place for this type of purchase, however regular, or their fraud tolerance is lower than the the other two. Either way it's really annoying and I try not to use Citi for airline tickets which is their loss.

goodeats21

For me, the major take-away from the story is the complete lack of interest of the (FAKE) 1K desk in trying to resolve a major issue for a 1K member.



The lack of assistance is astonishing when faced with a long-standing, fully confirmed and ticketed itinerary that on the day of travel just gets ignored.

worldwidedreamer

I wonder whether threshold for triggering a fraud alert is lower for one way award tickets booked for someone with a different last name? We've seen a few treads about this recently.

Often1

The vendors who provide this service use algorithms which are proprietary and take into account dozens of factors. You may have seen this same system in use at many self-serve gas stations where you may be asked to pay inside is your card triggers a fraud warning.

Here, on its face, you have:
- One-way ticket
- Award
- Third-party, e.g. not account holder
- CC issue
- Departing from ultra-high fraud location

I also wonder whether the passenger himself has been the beneficiary of award tickets from others in the past. The practice of using miles to pay for non-profit/charitable profit seems to be fairly widespread. If that is the case, the fraud alert is even higher.

The problem here is that the target of suspicion is the OP. Is he a mileage broker? Unlike the CC compromise, the last thing the fraud people will do is contact the suspect. While that sounds horrible in this particular context, it is the reality.

Rather than simply complaining to DOT, it is sometimes useful to make a positive suggestion. Here that suggestion would be that DOT require carriers to maintain a 24/7 contact with authority to act if the purchaser or passenger can provide an alternate form of guarantee, e.g., another CC in the event that the matter cannot be resolved. No fraudster would do that, yet the individual caught in a trap is more than willing to do so.

But, whatever you suggest, bear in mind that DOT is fully behind the carriers on anti-fraud efforts, so it's not going to work to suggest that the carriers simply back off.

exwannabe

A) Agreed that the way some airlines handle these events is problematical. If, for example, a CC company sees a possible fraud event they could freeze the card until resolved, but most people have alternatives to use while they resolve the issue. When an airlines responds to a fraud alert by canceling a ticket, it can easily lead to a day of departure disaster. Plus airlines have an additional alternative in that they can ironclad proof of identity, so this makes it easy to find a resolution.

B) Also agree that the particular transaction might have tripped quite a few danger signals.

C) Is it not OP's friend who has any sort of claim (or legit .....)? Since the original ticket was gifted free and clear, OP was not out when it was cancelled. That OP stepped up again for the flyer is not something he can expect compensation for. Admitted this is a nit-pick point, but how does the same logic apply on a ticket purchased for a spouse? Just curious.

I have had numerous times when a CC/DC did not work as expected due to a fraud flag. No real issue, and I understand the banks problem.

But if an airline cancelled a ticket of mine anywhere near day of departure for the same, I would not be able to print the language I would be using with them.

warakorn

I very much think that this is an EC261/2004 issue. Once the ticket was issued, the operating airline is on the hook to provide the service. Just suspending the ticket is not going to fly. The airline must justify it (e.g. a chargeback would be a plausible cause). However, Austrian cannot do that.

I would recommend the traveller to claim EUR 600 in article 7 compensation from Austrian Airlines.
Austrian can happily reclaim that money from the culprit (UA).

exwannabe

Huh?

If UA cancels the ticket, why would Austrian ever have a clue that this was anything other than one of the millions of tickets that are cancelled every year.

It would be an absurd burden on the system for the non-ticketing carrier to have to assume they are potentially responsibly for every ticket issued and cancelled (or re-issued),

Hypothetically, what if I just buy a ticket and immediately cancer (T-24). Can I go to the operating carrier can expect to board the flight? If not, can I expect EU 600?