that would have changed nothing--ie, the $1,000 limit is AirBnB's rule for Brazilian credit cards used to book US properties, i inferred, plus he had access to credit cards provided by family, co-workers, et al.
unless you mean by "get a credit card", get a US credit card (which i suppose means a credit card issued by a US bank), then indeed, that would have solved the initial problem (of the $1,000 limit) and allowed him to book his first choice.
but is this reasonable? If a US citizen travels to Brazil should they have to get a credit card issued by a Brazilian bank?
No, all of it sucks. But there is admittedly a difference: the rest of the stuff you are picking up after AirBnB's failings, but for the CC you are mostly picking up after the failings of the international consumer electronic payments ecosystem.
In each case they are "on you" only to the extent that you could have researched known problems and lowered your expectations. In neither case could you have gone to a competitor, because there are none.
The point of view you put forward is the one you get to if you choose to regard AirBnB as a moral agent, but to regard the electronic payments infrastructure as a force of nature. Why not the other way round?
unless you mean by "get a credit card", get a US credit card (which i suppose means a credit card issued by a US bank), then indeed, that would have solved the initial problem (of the $1,000 limit) and allowed him to book his first choice.
but is this reasonable? If a US citizen travels to Brazil should they have to get a credit card issued by a Brazilian bank?