Executive contact/complaint at Singapore Air?
May 23, 2010, 10:28 pm
#16
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SYDNEY
Programs: SQ/PPS SOLITAIRE, QF/CC, AA,UA
Posts: 53
Why couldn't SQ simply charge the same price as the original fare? If they did this no one could complain about being overcharged when the policy is enforced.
May 24, 2010, 10:08 am
#17
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1
I have forwarded the story to Redress.me. Hope you will get the recourse you needed. Here it is: http://redress.me/view_post.php?pid=132
May 24, 2010, 1:26 pm
#18
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: YYZ/DLC
Programs: AP, HHonours Diamond
Posts: 3,722
I have to say, the policy is definitely overzealous, despite the policy being quite obviously stated. OP should take some of the balme for not reading/paying attention to the information presented. I've booked SQ online many times and based on my experience they do warn you on quite a few places during and after you book the flight.
One way to avoid the check is to use a Visa or Master Card with the extra online verification (Verified by Visa/Master Card). This is how I book tix for my fiance on my card when she needs to travel.
That said, I like CX's policy that someone mentioned earlier if it is indeed that way. To charge full fare is just ridiculous.
OP can contest the charge with AmEx, but doubt they would win it unless they can get SQ to make an exception which would clearly be common sense in this case.
One way to avoid the check is to use a Visa or Master Card with the extra online verification (Verified by Visa/Master Card). This is how I book tix for my fiance on my card when she needs to travel.
That said, I like CX's policy that someone mentioned earlier if it is indeed that way. To charge full fare is just ridiculous.
OP can contest the charge with AmEx, but doubt they would win it unless they can get SQ to make an exception which would clearly be common sense in this case.
May 24, 2010, 1:33 pm
#19
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: YYZ/DLC
Programs: AP, HHonours Diamond
Posts: 3,722
This is a strange one, because CCs do expire and even when someone makes a booking, chances are they will destroy the old card once it's no longer valid and just carry around the new one.
Plus according to the OP the flights were paid for MONTHS AGO, so there's no way credit card fraud can possibly happen as you have like one week from receiving your last statement to make any claims for funny transactions.
Plus according to the OP the flights were paid for MONTHS AGO, so there's no way credit card fraud can possibly happen as you have like one week from receiving your last statement to make any claims for funny transactions.
Card processors (Think: Moneris, Global Payments) themselves have even longer if they feel like a transaction could be fraudulent, even if the cardholder isn't contesting. They regularly audit transactions, I guess in hopes of finding a problem with the merchant's handling and to deny the charge.
Last edited by payam81; May 24, 2010 at 1:41 pm
May 24, 2010, 1:39 pm
#20
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: YYZ/DLC
Programs: AP, HHonours Diamond
Posts: 3,722
I have forwarded the story to Redress.me. Hope you will get the recourse you needed. Here it is: http://redress.me/view_post.php?pid=132
From FT Guidelines & Rules:
User's Grant of Limited License
Members' posts cannot be printed or duplicated in any way by a third party without the consent of the authors.
Last edited by payam81; May 24, 2010 at 1:50 pm Reason: Added quote
May 25, 2010, 9:22 am
#21
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
Programs: No loyalties, just look for the best deal
Posts: 297
But Who is responsible?
Nope, depending on where your card was issued and by whom, you could have anywhere between 30 to 90 days to contest the charges.
Card processors (Think: Moneris, Global Payments) themselves have even longer if they feel like a transaction could be fraudulent, even if the cardholder isn't contesting. They regularly audit transactions, I guess in hopes of finding a problem with the merchant's handling and to deny the charge.
Card processors (Think: Moneris, Global Payments) themselves have even longer if they feel like a transaction could be fraudulent, even if the cardholder isn't contesting. They regularly audit transactions, I guess in hopes of finding a problem with the merchant's handling and to deny the charge.
1. If the flight booked online using a CC has already been taken, then SQ would receive payment and the loss would be absorbed by the card issuer. To be passed along to CC users via higher charges!!
2. If the flight had not yet been taken and a problem identified by the CC Company, then both SQ AND the CC Company would have ample time ahead of the flight to either contact the person booking the flight to advise of a problem and work something out and/or await the person behind the fraudulent charge to check-in and arrest them!!
Again, this policy serves no useful purpose except as an inconvenience to passengers. If an LCC such as AirAsia can accept and approve CC bookings up to 24 hours before departure without needing to inspect the CC at check-in, why can't SQ? If it is a financial issue, I would have thought that AirAsia's margins are under greater pressure than SQ's?
I suspect that this is another typically SQ case of "It's our policy", irrespective of whether or not it actually makes any sense.
May 25, 2010, 9:27 am
#22
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
Programs: No loyalties, just look for the best deal
Posts: 297
Misnomer
Incidentally, with respect, the content of this thread has drifted significantly from that noted, and I wonder if the Mods might like to consider either re-naming the thread or, alternatively, moving to another location?
May 25, 2010, 10:23 am
#23
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: YYZ/DLC
Programs: AP, HHonours Diamond
Posts: 3,722
I think you are missing the point. As it works, as soon as the CC Company approves a charge, the vendor is guaranteed payment. Therefore:
1. If the flight booked online using a CC has already been taken, then SQ would receive payment and the loss would be absorbed by the card issuer. To be passed along to CC users via higher charges!!
2. If the flight had not yet been taken and a problem identified by the CC Company, then both SQ AND the CC Company would have ample time ahead of the flight to either contact the person booking the flight to advise of a problem and work something out and/or await the person behind the fraudulent charge to check-in and arrest them!!
Again, this policy serves no useful purpose except as an inconvenience to passengers. If an LCC such as AirAsia can accept and approve CC bookings up to 24 hours before departure without needing to inspect the CC at check-in, why can't SQ? If it is a financial issue, I would have thought that AirAsia's margins are under greater pressure than SQ's?
I suspect that this is another typically SQ case of "It's our policy", irrespective of whether or not it actually makes any sense.
1. If the flight booked online using a CC has already been taken, then SQ would receive payment and the loss would be absorbed by the card issuer. To be passed along to CC users via higher charges!!
2. If the flight had not yet been taken and a problem identified by the CC Company, then both SQ AND the CC Company would have ample time ahead of the flight to either contact the person booking the flight to advise of a problem and work something out and/or await the person behind the fraudulent charge to check-in and arrest them!!
Again, this policy serves no useful purpose except as an inconvenience to passengers. If an LCC such as AirAsia can accept and approve CC bookings up to 24 hours before departure without needing to inspect the CC at check-in, why can't SQ? If it is a financial issue, I would have thought that AirAsia's margins are under greater pressure than SQ's?
I suspect that this is another typically SQ case of "It's our policy", irrespective of whether or not it actually makes any sense.
I admit I don't know the details of the agreement between SQ and its card processor, however in the merchant world in the US, if there is a charge back or even a card processor/issuer initiated audit, the card processor will ask the merchant to provide proof of the transaction in form of a receipt that shows how, when, where and by which terminal the card was either swiped or electronically keyed in and if necessary a signature or other proof such as a policy where you verify the credit card against a piece of photo ID (e.g. Best Buy in the US).
Failing this, the card processor can/will charge back the contested amount against the merchants account. The only time the costs are absorbed are when the merchant has followed all reasonable recourse in verifying the transaction.
This is not an excuse for SQ's policy that requires the pax to buy a new set of tix at walk up prices!
May 25, 2010, 6:45 pm
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 12,490
.....the card processor will ask the merchant to provide proof of the transaction in form of a receipt that shows how, when, where and by which terminal the card was either swiped or electronically keyed in and if necessary a signature or other proof such as a policy where you verify the credit card against a piece of photo ID (e.g. Best Buy in the US).
.......
.......
Apr 1, 2013, 2:21 am
#25
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SYD
Programs: QF Emerald EY Plat HH D
Posts: 1,270
I have had the same problem when flying F on EY.
rediculous as it was the return to a flight I had already taken
i have 8 credit cards and never ever remember which one I used for any flights.
also sometimes different companies pay for me to fly
how can i possibly get their credit card!! this is a rediculous rule I did not even know it existed with SQ i thought it was a middle east thing. .
rediculous as it was the return to a flight I had already taken
i have 8 credit cards and never ever remember which one I used for any flights.
also sometimes different companies pay for me to fly
how can i possibly get their credit card!! this is a rediculous rule I did not even know it existed with SQ i thought it was a middle east thing. .
Apr 1, 2013, 5:03 am
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: body: A stone's throw from SFO, mind: SE Asia
Programs: Some of this 'n some of that
Posts: 17,263
Apr 1, 2013, 7:57 am
#27
Join Date: Nov 2006
Programs: MPC,CA,MU,AF
Posts: 8,171
This is an old thread. The complaint was originally about SQ only. I am closing it before it gets too OT.
cxfan1960
SQ Mod
cxfan1960
SQ Mod