Air Canada imposes 'no fly' ban,

[hoops902]

Jun 5, 2019 10:24:17 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

I have had coworkers for years who have purchased expensive airline tickets through consolidators, most of these are to India but a few have been to both China and Japan as well.  So the fact that someone offers cheaper airline seats, even though it is through this sort of service is not unusual.

The last few years, many of the airline tickets that I have purchased have been through consolidators as well.  The fares have been around 50% off published fares, and have been over a bunch of different airlines.  The way the woman explained it to me is that the fares are discounted because they know that the seats are not going to get filled, the flights are not popular ones.  This service looks only at international flights, and for business class.

I think that Air Canada is going after the wrong person.  If one of their employees is selling their company benefit as a side business, then they need to cut that service off.....not go after the customer.  The customer does not know the rules that employee discounted flights have to operate under.  

That's not what is happening.  What is actually happening is that someone bought tickets with a stolen credit card then resold them.  There's just a theory someone has that the buyer was committing fraud because she must have THOUGHT it was an airline employee, and must have thought the airline employee was committing fraud.  Essentially, the claim is that the customer thought they were committing one kind of fraud that they clearly didn't because they would have no way of knowing if this hypothetical employee who didn't actually exist was allowed to buy employee tickets and resell them...and since someone has decided they are guilty of this other purely hypothetical fraud that didn't happen, they should be culpable for the credit card fraud that actually did occur.

[chapeau]

Jun 5, 2019 10:45:44 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jun 5, 2019 10:24:17 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

I have had coworkers for years who have purchased expensive airline tickets through consolidators, most of these are to India but a few have been to both China and Japan as well.  So the fact that someone offers cheaper airline seats, even though it is through this sort of service is not unusual.

The last few years, many of the airline tickets that I have purchased have been through consolidators as well.  The fares have been around 50% off published fares, and have been over a bunch of different airlines.  The way the woman explained it to me is that the fares are discounted because they know that the seats are not going to get filled, the flights are not popular ones.  This service looks only at international flights, and for business class.

I think that Air Canada is going after the wrong person.  If one of their employees is selling their company benefit as a side business, then they need to cut that service off.....not go after the customer.  The customer does not know the rules that employee discounted flights have to operate under.  

That's not what is happening.  What is actually happening is that someone bought tickets with a stolen credit card then resold them.  There's just a theory someone has that the buyer was committing fraud because she must have THOUGHT it was an airline employee, and must have thought the airline employee was committing fraud.  Essentially, the claim is that the customer thought they were committing one kind of fraud that they clearly didn't because they would have no way of knowing if this hypothetical employee who didn't actually exist was allowed to buy employee tickets and resell them...and since someone has decided they are guilty of this other purely hypothetical fraud that didn't happen, they should be culpable for the credit card fraud that actually did occur.

Sure, but there is a crime called "receiving stolen property." That's something she is guilty of. It really is the same as buying a TV out of the back of a truck, in the eyes of the law. If it is unusual to get a really, really good deal on something, then it should be on the buyer to ask a few extra questions. Buyer beware, there's no such thing as a free lunch, whatever, it is possible that a deal can be too good. If you're at a flea market buying a brand new 55-inch tv for $25, you're going to at least ask if the seller is getting a divorce and has to give the soon-to-be ex half of the sale proceeds because you know that's just too good a deal.

And let's face it, innocent people get caught and punished by the legal system for things that they really are just innocent bystanders to. Give someone you don't know well a ride, get pulled over by the police because you have a broken taillight, and boom, you're going to jail because he or she has pot or cocaine or meth on them (or they saw the flashing lights in the rear window and stuffed their baggie in the cup holder). Boom, innocent person is being punished for being nice. This isn't the same scenario, but in the eyes of the law it doesn't matter, this woman is guilty of a crime, too.

[laterbloomer]

Jun 5, 2019 11:10:35 GMT -5 chapeau said:

Jun 5, 2019 10:45:44 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

That's not what is happening.  What is actually happening is that someone bought tickets with a stolen credit card then resold them.  There's just a theory someone has that the buyer was committing fraud because she must have THOUGHT it was an airline employee, and must have thought the airline employee was committing fraud.  Essentially, the claim is that the customer thought they were committing one kind of fraud that they clearly didn't because they would have no way of knowing if this hypothetical employee who didn't actually exist was allowed to buy employee tickets and resell them...and since someone has decided they are guilty of this other purely hypothetical fraud that didn't happen, they should be culpable for the credit card fraud that actually did occur.

Sure, but there is a crime called "receiving stolen property." That's something she is guilty of. It really is the same as buying a TV out of the back of a truck, in the eyes of the law. If it is unusual to get a really, really good deal on something, then it should be on the buyer to ask a few extra questions. Buyer beware, there's no such thing as a free lunch, whatever, it is possible that a deal can be too good. If you're at a flea market buying a brand new 55-inch tv for $25, you're going to at least ask if the seller is getting a divorce and has to give the soon-to-be ex half of the sale proceeds because you know that's just too good a deal.

And let's face it, innocent people get caught and punished by the legal system for things that they really are just innocent bystanders to. Give someone you don't know well a ride, get pulled over by the police because you have a broken taillight, and boom, you're going to jail because he or she has pot or cocaine or meth on them (or they saw the flashing lights in the rear window and stuffed their baggie in the cup holder). Boom, innocent person is being punished for being nice. This isn't the same scenario, but in the eyes of the law it doesn't matter, this woman is guilty of a crime, too.

And she's not even getting charged legally. The company just wants her to pay for the flights she took. I think it's perfectly legit to say no more flying with us until you pay for what you've already gotten.

[hoops902]

Jun 5, 2019 11:10:35 GMT -5 chapeau said:

Jun 5, 2019 10:45:44 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

That's not what is happening.  What is actually happening is that someone bought tickets with a stolen credit card then resold them.  There's just a theory someone has that the buyer was committing fraud because she must have THOUGHT it was an airline employee, and must have thought the airline employee was committing fraud.  Essentially, the claim is that the customer thought they were committing one kind of fraud that they clearly didn't because they would have no way of knowing if this hypothetical employee who didn't actually exist was allowed to buy employee tickets and resell them...and since someone has decided they are guilty of this other purely hypothetical fraud that didn't happen, they should be culpable for the credit card fraud that actually did occur.

Sure, but there is a crime called "receiving stolen property." That's something she is guilty of. It really is the same as buying a TV out of the back of a truck, in the eyes of the law. If it is unusual to get a really, really good deal on something, then it should be on the buyer to ask a few extra questions. Buyer beware, there's no such thing as a free lunch, whatever, it is possible that a deal can be too good. If you're at a flea market buying a brand new 55-inch tv for $25, you're going to at least ask if the seller is getting a divorce and has to give the soon-to-be ex half of the sale proceeds because you know that's just too good a deal.

And let's face it, innocent people get caught and punished by the legal system for things that they really are just innocent bystanders to. Give someone you don't know well a ride, get pulled over by the police because you have a broken taillight, and boom, you're going to jail because he or she has pot or cocaine or meth on them (or they saw the flashing lights in the rear window and stuffed their baggie in the cup holder). Boom, innocent person is being punished for being nice. This isn't the same scenario, but in the eyes of the law it doesn't matter, this woman is guilty of a crime, too.

Yes, and that's a risk you run anytime you buy anything from anyone.

There's a HUGE difference, both in morality and in your likelihood of being prosecuted between "I unknowingly paid for something that was stolen" and "I actively committed fraud".

[chapeau]

Jun 5, 2019 11:46:03 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jun 5, 2019 11:10:35 GMT -5 chapeau said:

Sure, but there is a crime called "receiving stolen property." That's something she is guilty of. It really is the same as buying a TV out of the back of a truck, in the eyes of the law. If it is unusual to get a really, really good deal on something, then it should be on the buyer to ask a few extra questions. Buyer beware, there's no such thing as a free lunch, whatever, it is possible that a deal can be too good. If you're at a flea market buying a brand new 55-inch tv for $25, you're going to at least ask if the seller is getting a divorce and has to give the soon-to-be ex half of the sale proceeds because you know that's just too good a deal.

And let's face it, innocent people get caught and punished by the legal system for things that they really are just innocent bystanders to. Give someone you don't know well a ride, get pulled over by the police because you have a broken taillight, and boom, you're going to jail because he or she has pot or cocaine or meth on them (or they saw the flashing lights in the rear window and stuffed their baggie in the cup holder). Boom, innocent person is being punished for being nice. This isn't the same scenario, but in the eyes of the law it doesn't matter, this woman is guilty of a crime, too.

Yes, and that's a risk you run anytime you buy anything from anyone.

There's a HUGE difference, both in morality and in your likelihood of being prosecuted between "I unknowingly paid for something that was stolen" and "I actively committed fraud".

But there is some degree of culpability on her because she didn't ask questions. My high school principal used to remind us almost daily that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Is Air Canada well within its rights to ask her to pay for what she used? I think so. They are the company who ended up being defrauded, even if she wasn't the one who committed the initial crime. If I steal your CC number and use it to buy something--widget or airplane seat, the CC company does a chargeback against the merchant who sold me the widget. That merchant is out their profit and their merchandise. If they can track the merchandise to my house, they're going to at least try to get it back. Since plane seats can't be recovered once the flight has left, why can't they make her pay?

[shanendoah]

Let's think of it like counterfeit money:
Say I run into a person who has a $50 bill. They are standing around outside a store that has a sign that says they can't make change for anything larger than $20. The person offers to sell me their $50 bill for 2 $20 bills, because they really need to get something from this store, and the $50 is all they have. That can seem rather legit. And hey, I just got $50 for only $40, go me.
Now, off I go to a restaurant. At the end of my meal, I pay with the $50. But it turns out the $50 is counterfeit. I can't return the food - I ate it. I owe the restaurant the money for the food. So I am out the $40 I paid for the $50 bill in the first place AND I still need to pay for the goods I consumed. And if that is the full $50, then I am responsible for the full $50, not just the $40 I paid for the fake bill.
And if I say, I'm sorry, without that $50, I don't have enough to pay the bill, and I don't have another way to pay, the restaurant gets to call the police on me. And I can tell the police all I want about the guy who sold me the counterfeit bill, but that does not make me any less responsible for the whole restaurant bill. The police don't say "You poor thing, you accidentally bought a counterfeit bill. No, you don't have to pay for the food you ate. We'll find the guy who sold you the counterfeit bill, and we'll make him pay the restaurant bill." That's not how it works. I remain responsible for the full cost of my meal at the restaurant.
What I can do, if the police catch the person who sold me the counterfeit $50, is, even if I get my original $40 back, sue that person for the additional $10 of the $50, or more (for pain and suffering/damages), in civil court.
But what if the guy I got the $50 from also didn't know it was counterfeit? What if he really thought it was legit? "My brother owed me money, and he paid me back with this $50." It's possible that's legit and the police won't charge him either, but that doesn't let him off the hook for selling me the fake bill. I still have a civil case. Because, just like I (unknowingly) tried to defraud the restaurant, he is the one who (unknowingly) defrauded me. And he's the one I have a case against, just like the restaurant has a case against me.

This woman, even though she didn't know it, defrauded Air Canada. She is the one who received the consumable goods, like the meal at the restaurant. She is the one responsible for paying Air Canada the cost of the goods she received. Not the guy who defrauded her, her. She then has the right to sue the person who defrauded her for the full amount she had to pay Air Canada, but she is just as responsible for paying Air Canada for her flights as I was for paying the restaurant for my meal in the above scenario.

As for the argument about the fact that it worked in the past, and therefore, she shouldn't be held responsible for those plane tickets because Air Canada didn't catch it right away, let's look at a stolen credit card number:
Say I've been dating a guy for a while, and we have started talking about combining our finances. He hands me a credit card with my name on it, and says he made me a joint account holder on one of his cards. I go out that very day and buy things on the card. It works beautifully. I put it in my wallet and don't think about it for a week. The next weekend, I try to use the exact same card that worked before to buy something. Only now, it comes up as a stolen credit card. Am I only responsible for paying for the things I am trying to buy with it now? It worked last weekend, so I can't be held responsible for paying for the things I bought then, right?
Of course not. It doesn't matter that the credit card company didn't catch the fraudulent activity right away. They get to go back in the history, and come after me for every expense I put on the card, not just the one that actually triggered the network to say the number was stolen.

So again, the fact that this woman was able to successfully travel fraudulently multiple times does not free her from the responsibility of paying for the goods she consumed, even if her fraud was not caught at the time.


And on some level, this young woman is actually lucky it is only Air Canada coming after her in a civil suit, and that she has not been charged criminally with fraud. As I was trying to do some reading on this issue, I came across a scholarly study on the issue that mentioned that there are both victim travelers and complicit travelers traveling on these fraudulent tickets. And because complicit travelers are going to have a sob story where they claim to be victim travelers, law enforcement often does not make the distinction between the two at the time of complaint. Everyone is treated as a complicit traveler until they can prove they are a victim traveler.
So yeah, lucky she wasn't arrested.

Now, as for Air Canada putting her on their "no fly" list, on some level, it makes sense, on that same rule that businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. But, as the young woman's attorney said, Air Canada is a common carrier, which actually means they don't have that right - kind of like even if your county has outsourced power to a private entity, that private entity can't refuse to provide power to my house on basic principal, and, might very well have to provide power, even if I am in arrears on my bill, if I am making an effort to pay the bill. They can't just say they won't provide power to me, period, until everything I owe is paid.
However, with power companies, we often don't have a choice for another provider. This woman is flying into and out of major airports. She has multiple other airlines she could fly that are not Air Canada, and so no real harm is caused her by not allowing her on their airline.

[laterbloomer]

that private entity can't refuse to provide power to my house on basic principal

They can refuse service until you pay money owed in arrears. Which is what Air Canada is doing here. And she was a complicit traveler, no one thinks that Captain Cool is selling legit air tickets.

[hoops902]

Jun 5, 2019 20:37:26 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

that private entity can't refuse to provide power to my house on basic principal

They can refuse service until you pay money owed in arrears. Which is what Air Canada is doing here. And she was a complicit traveler, no one thinks that Captain Cool is selling legit air tickets.

Not everywhere they can't.  Lots of places have rules in place that you cannot turn off services like that regardless of there being an arrearage.

[laterbloomer]

Jun 7, 2019 13:51:28 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jun 5, 2019 20:37:26 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

They can refuse service until you pay money owed in arrears. Which is what Air Canada is doing here. And she was a complicit traveler, no one thinks that Captain Cool is selling legit air tickets.

Not everywhere they can't.  Lots of places have rules in place that you cannot turn off services like that regardless of there being an arrearage.

Only at certain times of year if there is a chance of freezing to death. There is no chance she will die if she can't fly with Air Canada.

[laterbloomer]

The reason this bugs me is because this is the kind of stuff that makes the price of my plane tickets go up.

[oped]

Jun 5, 2019 10:03:58 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Jun 5, 2019 9:46:01 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

So basically your entire argument comes down to "I'm a mind reader, I know what people knew or didn't know".  

Why can't she think "cool guy" is an airline employee who is looking to sell employee discount tickets he is allowed to purchase as an employee and do what he likes with it?

Because it is not reasonable to believe that. 

Do you live in the same world that I do?

[laterbloomer]

Jun 8, 2019 11:07:47 GMT -5 oped said:

Jun 5, 2019 10:03:58 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Because it is not reasonable to believe that. 

Do you live in the same world that I do?

You think Captain Cool is selling legal air line tickets for half price? Really?

[oped]

Speaking from the country with the largest percentage of prisoners on Earth, and Donald Trump as president, I think that if your measure of criminal culpability is going to be what is reasonable to believe... well...  I guess I should give up now and invest in the private prison complex. 

[laterbloomer]

Jun 8, 2019 14:37:55 GMT -5 oped said:

Speaking from the country with the largest percentage of prisoners on Earth, and Donald Trump as president, I think that if your measure of criminal culpability is going to be what is reasonable to believe... well...  I guess I should give up now and invest in the private prison complex. 

You do judge criminal liability on what it is reasonable to believe. Where do you think I got it from.

Anyway, this isn't about criminal liability. This is more of a collections issue. They are denying her service until she pays up what she owes.

Reasonable Person

A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.

The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances.