Originally Posted by
NickB
I would not have thought so. If BA think that tickets to/from certain destinations can be dodgy, it would need to make its enquiries before concluding the contract and I can't see any reason whatsoever why their systems could not be set up to do just that. If they have been happy to take the passenger's money and issue the ticket, and in the absence of any irregularity in the payment or improper behaviour by the passenger, it seems to me that they are not on strong grounds to deny boarding and refuse to carry the passenger.
To me that's a strong argument - and I guess it partly relates to my earlier question to
KARFA. I think that if it is anything generic or internal, the right time to check would have been before entering a contract (especially in the absence of anything in the terms of the contract which they unilaterally set which gives them the right to suspend the ticket afterwards). Afterall, the banks are no angels but they ask for the property valuation before they confirm your mortgage, they don't give it to you and then suspend it to check your property.
If there is something specific and unpredictable coming from a third party afterwards (e.g. some banking watchdog alerting them the credit card may have been stolen or something) I could imagine them trying to use that to try and justify suspending a contract pending further investigation, but if it is a doubt of their own making, let alone one based on generic and predictable elements such as the country of destination, it seems to me unjustifiable that they would take the money and... run out of their obligation.