Supposedly they weren’t able to terminate the call for any rrsson(at the time, almost a decade ago). I will agree it should of been escalated much faster though.
Honestly yea, the agent definitely shouldn’t have lasted that long. Escalate and then the manager can make the call on whether to drop the customer or not.
Honestly I feel like he was kinda right, they took $1600 from him, held it for a week, by following their directions and basically told him to get over it.
I will say he was perfectly nice to the agent, no cursing or raising a voice, just “no I won’t hang up till you resolve this.” “sir there is nothing I can do” “I won’t hang up till you resolve this” in a single monotone voice for 11.5 hours… That agent probably needs therapy.
The issue is “they” as in AA aren’t the ones holding that money, once the company cancels the payment it’s actually the bank (in this case either paypal or the card provider) that is withholding the money. Merchants generally don’t even receive the funds until like 4 or 5 days after authorization so they never had the money to hold.
Paypal in particular has one of the longer authorization falloffs, with 7-14 days at worst I’ve seen. Most banks run a 3-4 day falloff, but that’s not the fault of the airline, that’s strictly a Paypal problem.
In this case the airline decided to credit him which was nice but, the airline wasn’t the one holding the credit, the payment provider was, so really it wasn’t the responsibility of the airline to fix it.
This is also one of the reasons why some companies (like steam for example) take the money regardless if you refund or if it fails processing) and then treats it like a return crediting it back, this bypasses that authorization falloff by taking the money, and then sending the money back, but this of course increases the merchants fees in regard to that payment processor
That doesn’t change the fact this is clearly a known issue from AA and they continue to let that payment method get used. It’s their fault and on them to resolve because of that. Especially after they said to just try again.
I fully agree it’s sometimes a self created issue(although payment processors screw stuff up all the time as well so depending on the flow it might not be) but it’s not one that is their responsibility to resolve, they have canceled the transaction on their end, its on the payment processor to realize this and give the money back.
The only responsibility they have in this is investigating the issue on their end(which considering that trying again sometimes fixes it it may not even be on their end) to fix the payment flow, there’s no further obligation to the customer. They can’t give back money they don’t have, what ends up happening is like what the above described where the company takes a financial loss due to someone elses problem. Our old SOP for wireless deposits in the store I was at(we did a lot of second party contracting with Verizon and ATT) was informing the customer that the transaction has been cancelled/returned and should appear in the next 5-7 business days. If they complained we would state if they need the money sooner they could try contacting the payment provider, but it was out of our hands at this point. Us providing them money would end up giving the customer back the money twice, which was in no circumstance going to happen.
You could make the argument that it’s good customer service but like… at the end of the day, theres no obligation and the company needs to run. It’s a price analysis. Will giving this credit eventually give a net profit on this customer? At a potential $2600 loss unless they are a frequent flyer I’m guessing no.
I felt bad for customers that did a credit check for a phone, just to have it fail during processing, because it likely would fail the next retry due to a recent credit check, but we were out of options at that point, the store didn’t have a local payment scheme to set the customer up on, and they couldn’t just make it work without fully eating the cost of the device, which also the company wouldn’t be willing to do. It sucks for both parties.
Supposedly they weren’t able to terminate the call for any rrsson(at the time, almost a decade ago). I will agree it should of been escalated much faster though.
Honestly yea, the agent definitely shouldn’t have lasted that long. Escalate and then the manager can make the call on whether to drop the customer or not.
Honestly I feel like he was kinda right, they took $1600 from him, held it for a week, by following their directions and basically told him to get over it.
I will say he was perfectly nice to the agent, no cursing or raising a voice, just “no I won’t hang up till you resolve this.” “sir there is nothing I can do” “I won’t hang up till you resolve this” in a single monotone voice for 11.5 hours… That agent probably needs therapy.
The issue is “they” as in AA aren’t the ones holding that money, once the company cancels the payment it’s actually the bank (in this case either paypal or the card provider) that is withholding the money. Merchants generally don’t even receive the funds until like 4 or 5 days after authorization so they never had the money to hold.
Paypal in particular has one of the longer authorization falloffs, with 7-14 days at worst I’ve seen. Most banks run a 3-4 day falloff, but that’s not the fault of the airline, that’s strictly a Paypal problem.
In this case the airline decided to credit him which was nice but, the airline wasn’t the one holding the credit, the payment provider was, so really it wasn’t the responsibility of the airline to fix it.
This is also one of the reasons why some companies (like steam for example) take the money regardless if you refund or if it fails processing) and then treats it like a return crediting it back, this bypasses that authorization falloff by taking the money, and then sending the money back, but this of course increases the merchants fees in regard to that payment processor
That doesn’t change the fact this is clearly a known issue from AA and they continue to let that payment method get used. It’s their fault and on them to resolve because of that. Especially after they said to just try again.
I fully agree it’s sometimes a self created issue(although payment processors screw stuff up all the time as well so depending on the flow it might not be) but it’s not one that is their responsibility to resolve, they have canceled the transaction on their end, its on the payment processor to realize this and give the money back.
The only responsibility they have in this is investigating the issue on their end(which considering that trying again sometimes fixes it it may not even be on their end) to fix the payment flow, there’s no further obligation to the customer. They can’t give back money they don’t have, what ends up happening is like what the above described where the company takes a financial loss due to someone elses problem. Our old SOP for wireless deposits in the store I was at(we did a lot of second party contracting with Verizon and ATT) was informing the customer that the transaction has been cancelled/returned and should appear in the next 5-7 business days. If they complained we would state if they need the money sooner they could try contacting the payment provider, but it was out of our hands at this point. Us providing them money would end up giving the customer back the money twice, which was in no circumstance going to happen.
You could make the argument that it’s good customer service but like… at the end of the day, theres no obligation and the company needs to run. It’s a price analysis. Will giving this credit eventually give a net profit on this customer? At a potential $2600 loss unless they are a frequent flyer I’m guessing no.
I felt bad for customers that did a credit check for a phone, just to have it fail during processing, because it likely would fail the next retry due to a recent credit check, but we were out of options at that point, the store didn’t have a local payment scheme to set the customer up on, and they couldn’t just make it work without fully eating the cost of the device, which also the company wouldn’t be willing to do. It sucks for both parties.
Interesting, I did not know that, I always blamed the company.