Sounds reasonable to me, this happens sometimes. People forget that international flying isn't like a trip to the local shops by bus, but a journey through strange and foreign lands.
I've only read half of that story and there's 3 different reasons given; uncertain financial sit in Syria means AF couldn't use their credit card (the usual way of things), the ground staff refused fuel (presumably as it couldn't be paid for) and a passenger saying that they account was cancelled since AF stopped using Damascus. Aaaaaand then the last bit is AF saying it was the first reason Stupid story.
Yes, but no mention of thanks or anything. After all, they might have had to leave their multi-million pound jet there.
Other people forget that if you don't like, or aren't capable of dealing with, journeys through strange and foreign lands your best bet is not to be running an airline.
You seem to think airlines are powerful enough to simply bypass any of the exigencies of national sovereignty. They will always be subservient to the countries they fly through.
That a passenger aircraft belonging to one of the world's largest airlines and scheduled to land in a safe country ended up in a country to which most foreign ministries presumably advise against travel - and that the crew then thought they would need to borrow cash from passengers in order to get out of there - seems at least noteworthy to me. I mean, if I'd been onboard, I'd probably mention it to my friends, at least after I'd lamented that the quality of the food fell somewhat short of the reputation of the country whose flag the airline carries. I don't know about these things, but is it normal for a plane to be that short of fuel after a three hour flight?
