AC imposes 'no fly' ban, demands $18K from woman after ticket scam
Jun 4, 2019, 10:53 am
#31
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,918
Come on now. I really hope your posting was tongue in cheek and not serious.
So called employee pricing on automobiles is a marketing gimmick well advertised on legitimate media and at dealerships. If you can't figure out the difference between that and buying "special" tickets on Wechat, then there's not much more I can say.
So called employee pricing on automobiles is a marketing gimmick well advertised on legitimate media and at dealerships. If you can't figure out the difference between that and buying "special" tickets on Wechat, then there's not much more I can say.
Jun 4, 2019, 10:55 am
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,652
Come on now. I really hope your posting was tongue in cheek and not serious.
So called employee pricing on automobiles is a marketing gimmick well advertised on legitimate media and at dealerships. If you can't figure out the difference between that and buying "special" tickets on Wechat, then there's not much more I can say.
So called employee pricing on automobiles is a marketing gimmick well advertised on legitimate media and at dealerships. If you can't figure out the difference between that and buying "special" tickets on Wechat, then there's not much more I can say.
This isn't black and white - particularly for flights to Asia there are lots of consolidator fares out there priced well below what the AC web site might offer. It's not necessarily trivial to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Also no shortage of FT people who will happily book "mistake" fares knowing far better than this lady that the fare wasn't what the airline intended. Perhaps they should be thrown in jail.
Jun 4, 2019, 10:59 am
#33
Join Date: Sep 2004
Programs: USAir
Posts: 429
They are a private business but they are not free to do what they please. They cannot ban anybody just because they fabricated an accusation. This is what we have courts for. They are a public transportation company and they are owned by the public (shareholders are public).
Trading in "employee tickets" is not buyer's offence. AC has problem with the "employee ticket" seller. They have no right to do anything to the buyer. It looks as if the airlines in general detest regulations, but they do love to impose regulations on customers. So, the 'We The People' regulations have been eliminated and the private "regulations" were imposed with the vengeance. What a difference. The result is obvious: less competition, higher prices, passengers have teeth kicked out (literały), personnel wages went down, seats became smaller while the avg customer grew bigger, frequent flyer program are devalued - but airline executive become billionaires.
Yes there is no difference between the shop lifter and highway robbery by the unregulated airlines.
Trading in "employee tickets" is not buyer's offence. AC has problem with the "employee ticket" seller. They have no right to do anything to the buyer. It looks as if the airlines in general detest regulations, but they do love to impose regulations on customers. So, the 'We The People' regulations have been eliminated and the private "regulations" were imposed with the vengeance. What a difference. The result is obvious: less competition, higher prices, passengers have teeth kicked out (literały), personnel wages went down, seats became smaller while the avg customer grew bigger, frequent flyer program are devalued - but airline executive become billionaires.
Yes there is no difference between the shop lifter and highway robbery by the unregulated airlines.
Jun 4, 2019, 11:06 am
#34
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 6,228
And if you recall, one European carrier just went after someone quite publicly for the hidden city ploy. Probably just to scare off some of the more risk averse. Just like AC may be doing here.
Perhaps they should be thrown in jail.
Jun 4, 2019, 11:09 am
#35
Join Date: Sep 2016
Programs: AEROPLAN, SPG GOLD
Posts: 42
Not an unreasonable opinion BUT I think the case is more akin to unknowingly depositing a bad cheque, spending the money, the bank reversing the deposit and the depositor having to make good on the bad cheque. The bank is within its rights to do exactly that and the depositor's action is against the person issuing the bad cheque. Similar here, AC is right to claim against the person passing the bad ticket - that person then has to go after the entity that provided them that bad ticket. Might seem unfair but I do believe legally AC's action is proper - may not be good PR though; and similarly for banks, they MAY take the loss for bad cheques in certain circumstances.
Thus, whether AC's act to go after this person is legal or not, I do not know because I am not a lawyer. However, I think it is dumb because the lawyer fees they waste is more than the $18k they are often. Also, I am interested if they go after every case like this or is it a case by case basis.
Jun 4, 2019, 11:11 am
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17,454
As I said, what she did was wrong. But harsh criticism from this crowd is unseemly. Imo.
Jun 4, 2019, 11:11 am
#37
Join Date: Jun 2016
Programs: air miles
Posts: 283
So i walk into a bar and buddy approaches me and says he has "employee discounts" at the bar and that i should put my drinks on his tab and pay him the discounted price. Cool! We set up a tab with the bartender and i drink away. Unknown to me buddy had a fraudulent CC and all my drinks we not paid for and buddy has my cash. Bartender is pissed off and want the tab paid. He is certainly in his rights to refuse doing business with me and possibly could chase me for the tab. After all in the bartender's mind he doesn't know if I am an accomplice to buddy's fraud or just a victim, no matter what i might argue.
Jun 4, 2019, 11:20 am
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE 2MM; UA MP Premier Silver; Marriott Bonvoy LT Titanium Elite; Radisson; Avis PC
Posts: 35,255
This isn't the very first time this sort of thing has happened regarding AC.
I wonder what happened in previous instances where something similar occurred with AC?
I wonder what happened in previous instances where something similar occurred with AC?
Jun 4, 2019, 11:21 am
#39
Join Date: Sep 2016
Programs: AEROPLAN, SPG GOLD
Posts: 42
Employee tickets are meant for employees. Surely she knew she did not qualify. Plus, if it's good to be true, it generally is. Reminds me of the Madoff scheme, surely the bulk of the victims, who by and large were not naive, believed he did so well because he was able to get away with inside trading. Typical case of someone who thought she was smarter than the system, got away with it for a while, and eventually got caught.
Did you ever have a plane ticket fraudulently charged to your credit card? Most of the times, the charge is flagged as fraudulent after the passenger has already flown. So, not so easy to detect fraudsters. Plus, if you go back some discussions in this forum, the consensus was at least until recently that AC is overly heavy-handed with potential fraudsters. Can't have it both ways.
You are making assumptions that the article didnot answer. First, as others have mentioned 'employee' tickets aren't always for employees. Second, who knows but maybe she did ask this WeChat fraudster that is it okay for her to purchase these 'employee' tickets and whether they were an employee. Thus, I would hesitate to conclude that she knew. She is gullible but not an accessory to fraud unless more facts come out.
Jun 4, 2019, 11:35 am
#40
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 143
As other people have said, there is a very large majority of people who don't know the the terms and restrictions applied to employee pricing that people on FT know it as, and are not expected to. The huge twitter blow up about wearing leggings on the United flight when travelling on the "pass travelers" benefit is indicative of this.
And for those who question some of the too good to be true deals, I would like to re-direct you to the premium fare deals sub-section. Sure, there is a certain level of understanding to be expected on how large the discount could get to before it becomes unbelievable, but you can't really fault the logic of the traveler if 1) tickets were bought through the previously mentioned employee discount, and 2) it worked not once but three times over an 18 month period.
Edit: Anyway back to the real reason for the story, that being using stolen credit cards to buy air tickets. Does the sales terms and Canadian law consider the buyer and traveler both contractually obligated and binding to money owed on the ticket sale, since those two can be two separate entities? If not, I doubt AC can force the traveler to pay the costs through court as AC is primarily selling an obligation to Buyer ABC to transport Passenger XYZ, and therefore can only go after Buyer ABC for the loss, and at most cancel the existing ticket for Passenger XYZ instead of banning them. Imagine if some irresponsible parent used a fraudulent card to buy a ticket for an Unaccompanied Minor, I just can't see how AC is going to force the kid to pay for the fare difference.
And for those who question some of the too good to be true deals, I would like to re-direct you to the premium fare deals sub-section. Sure, there is a certain level of understanding to be expected on how large the discount could get to before it becomes unbelievable, but you can't really fault the logic of the traveler if 1) tickets were bought through the previously mentioned employee discount, and 2) it worked not once but three times over an 18 month period.
Edit: Anyway back to the real reason for the story, that being using stolen credit cards to buy air tickets. Does the sales terms and Canadian law consider the buyer and traveler both contractually obligated and binding to money owed on the ticket sale, since those two can be two separate entities? If not, I doubt AC can force the traveler to pay the costs through court as AC is primarily selling an obligation to Buyer ABC to transport Passenger XYZ, and therefore can only go after Buyer ABC for the loss, and at most cancel the existing ticket for Passenger XYZ instead of banning them. Imagine if some irresponsible parent used a fraudulent card to buy a ticket for an Unaccompanied Minor, I just can't see how AC is going to force the kid to pay for the fare difference.
Last edited by MT_Switch; Jun 4, 2019 at 11:54 am
Jun 4, 2019, 11:39 am
#41
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 669
Car dealerships offer "employee pricing" all the time. Its obvious to me that an employee ticket is free and non-transferable, but I don't think that is obvious to the general population.
I wonder if perhaps a cultural thing. Is it normal to haggle for big ticket commercially produced items/services down to 50% of the cost in Asia? I don't know. Sure, haggle in the market, but the price of a corporate supplied thing is the price, no?
It wasn't "buying online", it was "digging into a chatroom and soliciting deals". If those deals were scammy or impossible or normal, to her, depends on a cultural perspective I don't have.
I wonder if perhaps a cultural thing. Is it normal to haggle for big ticket commercially produced items/services down to 50% of the cost in Asia? I don't know. Sure, haggle in the market, but the price of a corporate supplied thing is the price, no?
It wasn't "buying online", it was "digging into a chatroom and soliciting deals". If those deals were scammy or impossible or normal, to her, depends on a cultural perspective I don't have.
Jun 4, 2019, 11:44 am
#42
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,568
Jun 4, 2019, 11:44 am
#43
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: トロント
Programs: IHG Gold
Posts: 4,820
They are a private business but they are not free to do what they please. They cannot ban anybody just because they fabricated an accusation. This is what we have courts for. They are a public transportation company and they are owned by the public (shareholders are public).
You think a publicly traded department store cannot ban certain patrons?
Jun 4, 2019, 11:46 am
#44
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ORD
Programs: US Air, UA BA LH AI DELTA MARRIOTT CHOICE SGP
Posts: 9,883
Jun 4, 2019, 11:48 am
#45
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,002
From the article.........
.... flying three times with Air Canada over almost a year and a half without an issue.
Qian says she paid "CaptainCooll" $5,800 for the flights, which included "deals" on business class seats.
Do we know how many of these flights were in Business Class?
Or the ratio of flights to YVR/PVG?
$5800 for three round trips with a couple segments in J isn't unreasonable.From the article.........
.....for a pre-booked fifth flight to Shanghai — another $3,600.
Current pricing for September is less than $4100. How would this kettle know that $3600 for J is unreasonable?
.... flying three times with Air Canada over almost a year and a half without an issue.
Qian says she paid "CaptainCooll" $5,800 for the flights, which included "deals" on business class seats.
Do we know how many of these flights were in Business Class?
Or the ratio of flights to YVR/PVG?
$5800 for three round trips with a couple segments in J isn't unreasonable.From the article.........
.....for a pre-booked fifth flight to Shanghai — another $3,600.
Current pricing for September is less than $4100. How would this kettle know that $3600 for J is unreasonable?