Originally Posted by
Guava
He bought online at AC.com for the original tickets.
That;s ot what the other poster was saying. But makes sense.
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.
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...
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.
Indeed. Would be AC anticipating a situation where the charge would have been reversed after they had flown. Not a blocked CC.