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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 09:07 PM |