A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Other Travel Groups » Travel - anything else not covered
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Seeking Advice, Please



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 25th, 2009, 09:14 PM posted to alt.travel.uk.air,rec.travel.air,rec.travel.misc
Neil Williams[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default Seeking Advice, Please

On Thu, 21 May 2009 07:53:34 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

They would claim that it reduces fraud. I've never really understood
what kind of scammer would turn up at the airport having identified
himself sufficiently to satisfy Homeland Security, to use a ticket he'd
bought with a stolen card (and more than that, before the real
cardholder had reported the fraud, at which point the airline would
simply cancel the ticket).


Someone told me that because the cardholder is obtaining the
product/service that it doesn't properly count as Cardholder Not
Present, whereas if it's for a third party it does. Doesn't explain
why some airlines (e.g. all budget ones I've used) don't require it,
though.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
  #2  
Old May 25th, 2009, 09:18 PM posted to alt.travel.uk.air,rec.travel.air,rec.travel.misc
Roland Perry[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 510
Default Seeking Advice, Please

In message , at 20:14:54 on Mon,
25 May 2009, Neil Williams remarked:

They would claim that it reduces fraud. I've never really understood
what kind of scammer would turn up at the airport having identified
himself sufficiently to satisfy Homeland Security, to use a ticket he'd
bought with a stolen card (and more than that, before the real
cardholder had reported the fraud, at which point the airline would
simply cancel the ticket).


Someone told me that because the cardholder is obtaining the
product/service that it doesn't properly count as Cardholder Not
Present, whereas if it's for a third party it does.


Even if this were true (and I have my doubts) all it means is a slight
shift in the liability towards the airline. But as they cancelled the
ticket as soon as they learnt it was a fraudulent transaction, what's
the problem?

Doesn't explain why some airlines (e.g. all budget ones I've used)
don't require it, though.


Presumably because they are more grown up and realise it's a waste of
everyone's time?
--
Roland Perry
  #3  
Old May 26th, 2009, 06:45 PM posted to alt.travel.uk.air,rec.travel.air,rec.travel.misc
DevilsPGD[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default Seeking Advice, Please

In message Roland Perry
was claimed to have wrote:

Even if this were true (and I have my doubts) all it means is a slight
shift in the liability towards the airline. But as they cancelled the
ticket as soon as they learnt it was a fraudulent transaction, what's
the problem?


Better yet, don't cancel anything, just arrest whoever shows up to use
the tickets.

The holy grail of credit card fraud is being able to know exactly where
the fraudster will be at a specific point in time.
  #4  
Old May 27th, 2009, 09:07 AM posted to alt.travel.uk.air,rec.travel.air,rec.travel.misc
Roland Perry[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 510
Default Seeking Advice, Please

In message , at 10:45:52 on
Tue, 26 May 2009, DevilsPGD remarked:

Even if this were true (and I have my doubts) all it means is a slight
shift in the liability towards the airline. But as they cancelled the
ticket as soon as they learnt it was a fraudulent transaction, what's
the problem?


Better yet, don't cancel anything, just arrest whoever shows up to use
the tickets.


That's presumably the reasoning behind the recent "Watchdog" story about
Easyjet cancelling tickets where they [mistakenly] claim a fraudulent
card has been used, and failing to inform the customer until they turn
up at the airport.

The funny thing is, none of these reports involve the person being
arrested - merely told they've been bumped off the flight, that they
can't get a refund, and if they are lucky there might be a seat at the
vastly increased price "on the day".

What I can't work out is why these cases have got as far as Watchdog,
because it seems like an open and shut case against the airline.

The holy grail of credit card fraud is being able to know exactly where
the fraudster will be at a specific point in time.


You'd have thought so - but what kind of dumb crook actually turns up
(rather than trying to get a refund remotely, and obviously laundering
it in some way so it isn't simply put back into the original card
account)?
--
Roland Perry
  #5  
Old May 27th, 2009, 09:33 AM posted to alt.travel.uk.air,rec.travel.air,rec.travel.misc
Graham Harrison[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 288
Default Seeking Advice, Please


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:45:52 on
Tue, 26 May 2009, DevilsPGD remarked:

Even if this were true (and I have my doubts) all it means is a slight
shift in the liability towards the airline. But as they cancelled the
ticket as soon as they learnt it was a fraudulent transaction, what's
the problem?


Better yet, don't cancel anything, just arrest whoever shows up to use
the tickets.


That's presumably the reasoning behind the recent "Watchdog" story about
Easyjet cancelling tickets where they [mistakenly] claim a fraudulent card
has been used, and failing to inform the customer until they turn up at
the airport.

The funny thing is, none of these reports involve the person being
arrested - merely told they've been bumped off the flight, that they can't
get a refund, and if they are lucky there might be a seat at the vastly
increased price "on the day".

What I can't work out is why these cases have got as far as Watchdog,
because it seems like an open and shut case against the airline.

The holy grail of credit card fraud is being able to know exactly where
the fraudster will be at a specific point in time.


You'd have thought so - but what kind of dumb crook actually turns up
(rather than trying to get a refund remotely, and obviously laundering it
in some way so it isn't simply put back into the original card account)?
--
Roland Perry


In cases such as this what seems to happen is that someone offers cheap
tickets (as we all know, even easyJet tickets get expensive at times). The
passenger pays the intermediary and the intermediary pays the airline using
the fraudulent card.

  #6  
Old May 27th, 2009, 10:15 AM posted to alt.travel.uk.air,rec.travel.air,rec.travel.misc
Roland Perry[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 510
Default Seeking Advice, Please

In message , at 09:33:10 on
Wed, 27 May 2009, Graham Harrison
remarked:
In cases such as this what seems to happen is that someone offers cheap
tickets (as we all know, even easyJet tickets get expensive at times).
The passenger pays the intermediary and the intermediary pays the
airline using the fraudulent card.


I can understand why there is greater risk when the ticket is paid for
by a third party - but when the Credit Card is in the same name as the
passenger, why are Easyjet cancelling those tickets too?

(Of course, we should also be asking where the false "card declined"
messages are coming from. I have experienced this several times
recently, but for flights/train-tickete at the time of ordering so I
simply used a different card; but one long-standing CC monthly charge
was falsely bumped[1], and a phone company cut me off!)

[1] Phone company says it was declined, Card Company say they were (a)
never asked and (b) have in any event never declined any transaction on
that card.
--
Roland Perry
  #7  
Old May 27th, 2009, 08:57 PM posted to alt.travel.uk.air,rec.travel.air,rec.travel.misc
DevilsPGD[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default Seeking Advice, Please

In message Roland Perry
was claimed to have wrote:

In message , at 09:33:10 on
Wed, 27 May 2009, Graham Harrison
remarked:
In cases such as this what seems to happen is that someone offers cheap
tickets (as we all know, even easyJet tickets get expensive at times).
The passenger pays the intermediary and the intermediary pays the
airline using the fraudulent card.


I can understand why there is greater risk when the ticket is paid for
by a third party - but when the Credit Card is in the same name as the
passenger, why are Easyjet cancelling those tickets too?


My guess? It's more profitable to see who shows up at the airport then
attempt to bill them higher rates (and otherwise resell the seat) then
to attempt to contact people and identify whether a transaction is
fraudulent or not.

(Of course, we should also be asking where the false "card declined"
messages are coming from. I have experienced this several times
recently, but for flights/train-tickete at the time of ordering so I
simply used a different card; but one long-standing CC monthly charge
was falsely bumped[1], and a phone company cut me off!)

[1] Phone company says it was declined, Card Company say they were (a)
never asked and (b) have in any event never declined any transaction on
that card.


"Card Declined" is sometimes used as a catch-all for other errors, or
where the merchant account's fraud system detected something suspicious
and declined the transaction (although not the specific card) before
even talking to the issuing bank.

Unfortunately, it's not in a company's best interests to return the
exact error message received, doing so actually encourages fraudsters to
use said company's services to validate credit cards. For example, if I
have a credit card number, name, billing address, phone number and CVV2
but know that one piece of information is wrong, a merchant that will
tell me which piece if wrong is invaluable.
  #8  
Old May 28th, 2009, 07:26 AM posted to alt.travel.uk.air,rec.travel.air,rec.travel.misc
Graham Harrison[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 288
Default Seeking Advice, Please


My guess? It's more profitable to see who shows up at the airport then
attempt to bill them higher rates (and otherwise resell the seat) then
to attempt to contact people and identify whether a transaction is
fraudulent or not.


I don't know why easyJet are working the way they do. Other airlines have
been known to allow the passengers to check in and then allow the passengers
to travel on the basis that by questioning (with the cooperation of the
police) the passenger they can determine who the fraudster intermediary was.

  #9  
Old May 28th, 2009, 08:17 AM posted to alt.travel.uk.air,rec.travel.air,rec.travel.misc
Roland Perry[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 510
Default Seeking Advice, Please

In message , at 12:57:18 on
Wed, 27 May 2009, DevilsPGD remarked:
I can understand why there is greater risk when the ticket is paid for
by a third party - but when the Credit Card is in the same name as the
passenger, why are Easyjet cancelling those tickets too?


My guess? It's more profitable to see who shows up at the airport then
attempt to bill them higher rates (and otherwise resell the seat) then
to attempt to contact people and identify whether a transaction is
fraudulent or not.


They don't have to start working out if the transaction is fraudulent,
they could just cancel the ticket and *tell the customer* there was a
problem with the card. To also not refund the payment is rubbing salt in
the wound, and strikes me as an extremely dubious practice.

(Of course, we should also be asking where the false "card declined"
messages are coming from. I have experienced this several times
recently, but for flights/train-tickete at the time of ordering so I
simply used a different card; but one long-standing CC monthly charge
was falsely bumped[1], and a phone company cut me off!)

[1] Phone company says it was declined, Card Company say they were (a)
never asked and (b) have in any event never declined any transaction on
that card.


"Card Declined" is sometimes used as a catch-all for other errors,


I know - that's why I put it in quotes.

or where the merchant account's fraud system detected something
suspicious and declined the transaction (although not the specific
card) before even talking to the issuing bank.


But putting the blame on the banks is disingenuous.

Also, one time this happened to me it was a monthly telephone payment
that had gone through OK for several years. Then suddenly bounced for no
reason that anyone could discover (they almost lost my business over it,
and I ended up talking to the MD about it).

Unfortunately, it's not in a company's best interests to return the
exact error message received, doing so actually encourages fraudsters to
use said company's services to validate credit cards. For example, if I
have a credit card number, name, billing address, phone number and CVV2
but know that one piece of information is wrong, a merchant that will
tell me which piece if wrong is invaluable.


Yes, but when all those things are OK, it's frustrating for the genuine
customer to be told the card has been declined when he knows it's not an
issue with his credit limit.
--
Roland Perry
  #10  
Old May 28th, 2009, 08:28 AM posted to alt.travel.uk.air,rec.travel.air,rec.travel.misc
Roland Perry[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 510
Default Seeking Advice, Please

In message , at 07:26:05 on
Thu, 28 May 2009, Graham Harrison
remarked:
My guess? It's more profitable to see who shows up at the airport then
attempt to bill them higher rates (and otherwise resell the seat) then
to attempt to contact people and identify whether a transaction is
fraudulent or not.


I don't know why easyJet are working the way they do. Other airlines
have been known to allow the passengers to check in and then allow the
passengers to travel on the basis that by questioning (with the
cooperation of the police) the passenger they can determine who the
fraudster intermediary was.


The immediate problem is the stone wall they throw up when there isn't
an intermediary, and there didn't seem to be any reason why the ticket
was cancelled. On Watchdog they described how Customer Services said the
passenger should contact the Fraud Prevention team, then refused to give
any contact details!
--
Roland Perry
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Seeking Advice, Please Newby Air travel 24 May 28th, 2009 09:07 AM
Seeking Advice, Please Newby Travel - anything else not covered 0 May 22nd, 2009 11:47 AM
Seeking some GOOD advice...NCL Len C. Cruises 27 August 5th, 2005 11:57 AM
seeking advice and suggestions browndesi Europe 9 April 13th, 2005 01:24 PM
seeking Guatemala advice dajaxon Latin America 29 March 26th, 2004 10:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.