CX pilot scams $36k from AC

Old Jan 14, 2018, 7:06 am
  #106  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Toronto (YYZ)
Posts: 6,279
I interacted with Marc on numerous occasions when he was still active on FT and never once did he mention anything about offering Aeroplan points for sale or exchange.
imverge is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2018, 7:10 am
  #107  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Toronto (YYZ)
Posts: 6,279
Originally Posted by tracon
I've never had an interest in selling my points.
So if you didn't sell your points and you say you are out close to $20K then did you purchase Aeroplan tickets and resell them only to find out they were cancelled once Aeroplan found out they were being sold?
tecate55 likes this.
imverge is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2018, 9:12 am
  #108  
Moderator, Air Canada; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE MM, FB Plat, WS Plat, BA Silver, DL GM, Marriott Plat, Hilton Gold, Accor Silver
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by pitz
Its noteworthy because the assumption made all these years was that the relations between the airline partners and AP weren't of cash, but rather were of barter with notional amounts based on a specific fraction of a full-Y fares being computed for the tally of such. With awards availability being the mechanism that was used to throttle imbalances between redemptions and points paid out. As evidenced by the different inventories AP customers have access to on Star Alliance airlines compared to access allowed to members of other Star Alliance FFPs.

FWIW, when I dealt with TD recently on a matter of 15,000 missing AP points not credited to my account arising from signing up for one of their cards, they gave me $200 in cash.
None of that has anything to do with this. AC likely claimed damages of $554.33 based on what it paid AE for the points. That has nothing to do with the value of the tickets for which those points were redeemed, whether for AC metal or other airlines' metal.
Adam Smith is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2018, 10:28 am
  #109  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,024
Originally Posted by imverge
So if you didn't sell your points and you say you are out close to $20K then did you purchase Aeroplan tickets and resell them only to find out they were cancelled once Aeroplan found out they were being sold?
I never sold/purchased points.
Marc never told me that's what he was doing.

For a variety of reasons, that's about all I can say on the issue.
tracon is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2018, 10:36 am
  #110  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,542
Originally Posted by pitz
Its noteworthy because the assumption made all these years was that the relations between the airline partners and AP weren't of cash, but rather were of barter with notional amounts based on a specific fraction of a full-Y fares being computed for the tally of such.
I'm curious why you made that assumption.
canadiancow is online now  
Old Jan 14, 2018, 11:00 am
  #111  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: YOW
Programs: AC SEMM; AA,DL, Hyatt and Starwood. Ex-status:SQ PPS,CSA,Hilton,AA,UA
Posts: 743
Originally Posted by KenHamer
Seems like [...] is generally a pretty decent guy and that this event was out of character [...] Which got me wondering why we would have done this in the first place.
The answer seemed obvious to me -- that people don't like airlines, and any chance to "get even" is a good chance. They see airlines as large, faceless, evil organizations that deserve whatever they get.
I think this is true and important. It's easy to get down the moral (and legal) slippery slope extremely quickly when people allow themselves to consider institutions as faceless, not-really-victims, and even more when consider them an enemy with which to "get even" or more.

A couple of years back, somewhere around the 300 or 350k AQM mark, I chose a fancy automatic espresso machine from Air Canada's (pretty limited) threshhold gift selection. They screwed up and 6 weeks later sent me 4 more of them. It was a bit of a challenge to find someone to talk to at AC to send them back. I found it mind-boggling how many of my friends were completely gobsmacked we didn't just keep all of them and sell them or give them away. It's a bit of a moral grey zone, so I'd fully respect someone asking "Did you think of keeping them?" or "I"m not sure I would have tried as hard as you did to return them". But lots of moral, honest people -- who of course would return, even print up and post signs, if they found a lost wallet with $100 in it -- immediately unconsciously jumped to the narrative of "one of my friends could have Won a battle with our shared faceless enemy, Air Canada" and clearly didn't even stop to consider from the perspective of "should I be returning something I received by accident and am not entitled to".

(I'm not trying to equate my example with the one in this thread, merely comment how many people's moral compasses are highly dependent on the injured party being an individual not an institution.)
montrealer is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2018, 11:15 am
  #112  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Toronto (YYZ)
Posts: 6,279
Originally Posted by tracon
I never sold/purchased points.
I never suggested you sold or purchased points. I suggested you purchased Aeroplan tickets.

Originally Posted by tracon
Marc never told me that's what he was doing.
Whatever you exchanged $20K with Marc - Are you saying you were not aware what he was doing was illegal or improper?

Originally Posted by tracon
For a variety of reasons, that's about all I can say on the issue.
All-righty then

Last edited by imverge; Jan 14, 2018 at 11:39 am Reason: grammar
imverge is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2018, 11:16 am
  #113  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,222
Originally Posted by tracon
I never sold/purchased points.
Marc never told me that's what he was doing.
So I guess it was your brother's neighbour's uncle's sister's hair stylist that told you?
For a variety of reasons, that's about all I can say on the issue.
So you're pleading the fifth to avoid self-incrimination?

With each passing post who should be warned against becomes more clear.
KenHamer is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2018, 11:57 am
  #114  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E75K, Amex Plat, NEXUS, Aman-user (not really a -junkie)
Posts: 1,721
I think this thread is going OT... It's fairly clear what has happened in the court proceedings. Any other claims or nice guy defence posts by internet references are immaterial. In my experience, I would just say that the truth is stranger than fiction and that I am not surprised by any revelations about anyone.
xray is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2018, 12:22 pm
  #115  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
Interesting how the FT community is once again turning on itself in its haste to rationalize and deflect. Everything we as a group tend to do in terms of playing the system can be considered deliberate - and sometimes trends towards the disingenuous. The question becomes: where does this intentional attempt to flout conventional transactions meet the top of the slick slope towards fraudulent behaviour? I think every one of us would take the opportunity to 'get more for less'; it's human nature and forms an important component of our system of commodity exchange, not to mention being personally satisfying. However, when challenged, let's not be so quick to adopt an imperious moral stance, dependent upon our satisfaction that we are technically playing within the rules.

Every time we terminated our journey at an intermediate stop and discarded our onward ticket, or flew to Toronto via Guadalajara, or spent 56 of 61 days using an unlimited flight pass to maximize our personal gain, we did so knowing that we weren't explicitly breaking any rules, but there were also no rules stating that this was allowable behaviour. When we act against the spirit of an agreement, we may be committing no crime. But our gain usually comes at the expense of somebody else. It may be a corporation, who distribute their increased costs to the rest of their customers, or one of thousands of travellers who couldn't obtain a seat on a full airplane because it was filled by somebody who didn't really need to be flying that leg, or didn't show up at all. In the end, it could be ourselves; each time an airline closes a loophole or 'enhances' its benefits, there's a reason why it was driven to do so.

The issue boils down to our subject of this thread: he gamed the system but went too far and in my opinion, based upon personal history, did so with full intent to profit. He knew the intent of the mystery shopper program was to exchange discounted travel for legitimate service appraisals. When handed the codes, he understood it wasn't manna from heaven; he knew just what to do with them and (thought) he knew how best to game the system.

We should pay heed.
CZAMFlyer is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2018, 12:47 pm
  #116  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: YXE
Posts: 3,050
Originally Posted by Adam Smith
None of that has anything to do with this. AC likely claimed damages of $554.33 based on what it paid AE for the points.
But if AC isn't paying anything for AP points, how could they assign a true value to them? Its probably just an internal business planning valuation for points, not something that AC could be rigorously cross-examined upon if the $554.33 "amount" was ever in dispute.

I'm curious why you made that assumption.


Because it makes sense and historically airlines haven't exchanged cash, given the often complex international barriers to doing so and the fact of such agreements usually being mutually beneficial. Barter transactions also in some cases are less exposed to sales and income taxes. For various reasons, AC/AP have avoided placing a 'value' on AP points as if a value was placed upon them, their customers, many of whom are public servants or representatives of corporations would have an obligation to give such back to their employers to avoid the appearance or fact of conflict-of-interest, bribery, self-dealing, etc. Tax authorities such as the CRA also deem that FFP points earned incidentally in the course of working for an employer are *not* taxable benefits -- a concept that only makes sense if AP points are value-less. The fine print of the AP T&C contains, or formerly contained a statement to the effect that AP points have no cash value.

Anyways, the rest of this thread has led me to believe that AC had a good reason for a pretty significant animus against this individual. Transgressions should have been dealt with earlier, and probably would have been dealt with through account cancellation/revocation if AP was still an in-house program.

Last edited by pitz; Jan 14, 2018 at 12:53 pm
pitz is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2018, 1:07 pm
  #117  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,222
Originally Posted by Adam Smith
None of that has anything to do with this. AC likely claimed damages of $554.33 based on what it paid AE for the points. That has nothing to do with the value of the tickets for which those points were redeemed, whether for AC metal or other airlines' metal.
Then you make the original point perfectly.

How much did AC pay for the catering (for those involved) on those flights, and why was it not also claimed?
KenHamer is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2018, 2:35 pm
  #118  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,542
Originally Posted by CZAMFlyer
Interesting how the FT community is once again turning on itself in its haste to rationalize and deflect. Everything we as a group tend to do in terms of playing the system can be considered deliberate - and sometimes trends towards the disingenuous. The question becomes: where does this intentional attempt to flout conventional transactions meet the top of the slick slope towards fraudulent behaviour? I think every one of us would take the opportunity to 'get more for less'; it's human nature and forms an important component of our system of commodity exchange, not to mention being personally satisfying. However, when challenged, let's not be so quick to adopt an imperious moral stance, dependent upon our satisfaction that we are technically playing within the rules.

Every time we terminated our journey at an intermediate stop and discarded our onward ticket, or flew to Toronto via Guadalajara, or spent 56 of 61 days using an unlimited flight pass to maximize our personal gain, we did so knowing that we weren't explicitly breaking any rules, but there were also no rules stating that this was allowable behaviour. When we act against the spirit of an agreement, we may be committing no crime. But our gain usually comes at the expense of somebody else. It may be a corporation, who distribute their increased costs to the rest of their customers, or one of thousands of travellers who couldn't obtain a seat on a full airplane because it was filled by somebody who didn't really need to be flying that leg, or didn't show up at all. In the end, it could be ourselves; each time an airline closes a loophole or 'enhances' its benefits, there's a reason why it was driven to do so.

The issue boils down to our subject of this thread: he gamed the system but went too far and in my opinion, based upon personal history, did so with full intent to profit. He knew the intent of the mystery shopper program was to exchange discounted travel for legitimate service appraisals. When handed the codes, he understood it wasn't manna from heaven; he knew just what to do with them and (thought) he knew how best to game the system.

We should pay heed.
While I agree with most of what you say, I'm pretty sure the tariffs have something to say about hidden city ticketing, which would mean you're explicitly breaking a contract you agreed to.

Convoluted routings and actually flying an unlimited FP are not even close to being on that level.
canadiancow is online now  
Old Jan 14, 2018, 6:56 pm
  #119  
Moderator, Air Canada; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE MM, FB Plat, WS Plat, BA Silver, DL GM, Marriott Plat, Hilton Gold, Accor Silver
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by pitz
But if AC isn't paying anything for AP points, how could they assign a true value to them? Its probably just an internal business planning valuation for points, not something that AC could be rigorously cross-examined upon if the $554.33 "amount" was ever in dispute.

Because it makes sense and historically airlines haven't exchanged cash, given the often complex international barriers to doing so and the fact of such agreements usually being mutually beneficial. Barter transactions also in some cases are less exposed to sales and income taxes. For various reasons, AC/AP have avoided placing a 'value' on AP points as if a value was placed upon them, their customers, many of whom are public servants or representatives of corporations would have an obligation to give such back to their employers to avoid the appearance or fact of conflict-of-interest, bribery, self-dealing, etc. Tax authorities such as the CRA also deem that FFP points earned incidentally in the course of working for an employer are *not* taxable benefits -- a concept that only makes sense if AP points are value-less. The fine print of the AP T&C contains, or formerly contained a statement to the effect that AP points have no cash value.

Anyways, the rest of this thread has led me to believe that AC had a good reason for a pretty significant animus against this individual. Transgressions should have been dealt with earlier, and probably would have been dealt with through account cancellation/revocation if AP was still an in-house program.
You're comparing apples and oranges. AC does pay Aeroplan for points, just as TD, Amex, Esso, etc pay Aeroplan for points.

You're confusing separate issues: as long as there have been 3rd party partners, Aeroplan has sold points for cash. Before Aeroplan was spun off in 2002, AC may or may not have made an internal cash transfer between the airline and the FFP, but CIBC et al would have been purchasing points from Aeroplan long before that, so there has been a valuation on the sale of points by AC/Aeroplan for 20+ years.

This is completely distinct from not assigning a cash value for redemption purposes, which is what Aeroplan has been sensitive to.

Originally Posted by KenHamer
Then you make the original point perfectly.

How much did AC pay for the catering (for those involved) on those flights, and why was it not also claimed?
Meals would have simply been a benefit of the tickets available to anyone who purchased them. It's possible that AC's claim for the miles it purchased related only to the bonus miles that Tacchi earned that were a benefit of his status, and, therefore, one could argue not part of the value accorded to an ordinary purchaser of the tickets.

I suspect the court wouldn't have approved reimbursement of the cost of the miles otherwise, but it's really not that important.
Adam Smith is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2018, 8:22 pm
  #120  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,222
Originally Posted by CZAMFlyer
Every time we terminated our journey at an intermediate stop and discarded our onward ticket, or flew to Toronto via Guadalajara, or spent 56 of 61 days using an unlimited flight pass to maximize our personal gain, we did so knowing that we weren't explicitly breaking any rules, but there were also no rules stating that this was allowable behaviour.
This might well be the most absurd thing I have ever read on the internet,

First off, we live in a civilization that for many centuries has held that unless something was explicitly prohibited, it is by definition allowed.

Secondly, your claim that "our gain usually comes at the expense of somebody else" could apply to using the lavs on plane. After all, there are no rules stating that using the lavs is an allowable behaviour. And if someone is in there when I want to use it, their "unsanctioned" use of the lavs is denying me the right to use the lav when I want. Of course I could just wait until the lav becomes available, much like someone who couldn't get on a full flight could wait until a seat becomes available, perhaps on the next flight.

Thirdly, your claim that "Every time we terminated our journey at an intermediate stop and discarded our onward ticket, or flew to Toronto via Guadalajara, or spent 56 of 61 days using an unlimited flight pass to maximize our personal gain, we did so knowing that we weren't explicitly breaking any rules, but there were also no rules stating that this was allowable behaviour" is explicitly and demonstrably wrong. Air Canada's contract of carriage (tariffs and all the rest) explicitly prohibit throw-away ticketing, and allows for redress for the funds not received when someone pays less for a hidden city ticket they have no intention of using as ticketed.

But you are also explicitly wrong when you claim there are "no rules stating that this was allowable behaviour." In fact the rules used for Mexican Hat Dance tickets explicitly stated and allowed that use. Every fare included a routing table that might look something like:


or something to that effect. (This is a DL example, of course, showing the allowed routings from Vancouver to Mazatlan. The "YY" airline code allows any airline. DL only because it was the first one I could easily find.)

The explicitly stated rules also included lots of other elements, some of which would be:

Which is to say that the rules explicitly stated exactly which routes you could fly, which airlines you could fly on each segment, which cities you could connect and/or stopover in, that you could stopover in as many places as you wanted, and that there was no requirement to spend any time in the destination city.

I can't reliably speak to the Unlimited Flight Pass (because I had nothing to do with it) but I'm pretty sure the words "Unlimited", "Flight", and "Pass" accurately describe it. Moreover, I recall a senior official of Air Canada (Robert Milton perhaps) publicly cheering on Mr. Tacchi and noting that it was great publicity for their new pass products.

Finally, you seem to be conflating an activity that was clearly contrary to Air Canada's Rules, the mystery shopper program company's rules, and the Criminal Code of Canada, with activities that are explicitly allowed.

In short, your your comparisons, logic, and conclusions are nonsense. And your implication that there's something wrong with people seeking to "maximize our personal gain" implicates anyone who ever shopped around for the best deal... on anything. The fact is every human that ever lived spent almost every minute of their life trying to maximize their personal gain.

Moreover the repeated claims throughout this forum that the airline has a fiduciary responsibility to seek every advantage that they can to "maximize our personal their corporate gain" while passengers have a moral obligation not to do anything that might disadvantage the airline in any way, regardless of what the rules implicitly and explicitly allow, also show your claims to be the nonsense they are.
margarita girl likes this.
KenHamer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.