The collapse of FlyGlobespan and the subsequent focus on credit card processing systems run by companies such as EClear has thrown up all manner of questions.
Administrator PricewaterhouseCoopers has singled out EClear as a key third party in the whole sorry saga of the airline's financial failure amid accusations that the technology owes its around £34 million.
The issue has gained extra attention when Scottish first minister Alex Salmond waded in late yesterday with a call for a full investigation.
Most members of the public - including one UK national newspaper journalist who contacted Tnooz yesterday - were completely unaware until this week that companies such as EClear exist, it's only a credit card payment after all.
But exist they do, as customer facing systems (especially in airlines) become more complicated and therefore the requirements for automation and expertise to outsourced companies grow.
In the case of EClear, which said yesterday it is willing to cooperate with PWC in its investigation, it is still difficult to determine exactly how it moved FlyGlobespan's money around and under what terms it would have set for payment.
Through a series of statements, EClear said it was holding onto the money because it claimed FlyGlobespan did not have business risk insurance.
Clearly there was so kind of dispute between the two companies, made more complicated by reports that EClear chief executive Elias Elia was in talks through a Jersey-based investment firm Halcyon to buy into Globespan on the eve of its collapse.
A number of sources say that Globespan could have been trying to extricate itself from the EClear contract and was attempting to get the money relating to unknown segments back to bolster its cash flow and perhaps preventing its collapse.
However, Globespan may have had a problem with this approach.
Unless EClear has a banking licence (unknown in this case, but unlikely), it would need to be sponsored for its Visa and Mastercard services by a financial institution.
At least until February 2008, the date of its most recent audited financial report, EClear used the Royal Bank of Scotland for its banking services.
In any event, their sponsoring bank is 100% liable for fulfilling and chargebacks (disputes) arising from customers with unflown flight segments.
So if EClear is unable to refund the monies due tp FlyGlobespan’s customers, their sponsoring bank is on the line.
If the sponsoring bank can’t (very, very rare), then Visa and MasterCard are liable.
EClear's sponsoring bank is, however, 100% liable for fulfilling and chargebacks (or disputes) arising from customers with unflown flight segments.
So if EClear was unable (or unwilling) to refund the monies due to FlyGlobespan’s customers, the sponsoring bank is on the line.
If the sponsoring bank declines, which is apparently extremely rare, then Visa and MasterCard are liable.
There is no suggestion that this is exactly what took place, but as the spotlight increasingly focuses on the monies owed and the wider financial difficulties facing Globespan, the relationship and what took place between EClear and the airline's executives in the weeks leading up to the collapse will be extremely interesting.