Oct 1, 2013, 3:03 pm
Last edit by: Ari
PLEASE READ FIRST: WIKIPOST and MODERATOR NOTE
MODERATOR NOTE:
Please note: Insensitive or attacking posts, discussion about other posters and their motives, and other off-topic posts/comments are not allowed, per FlyerTalk Rules.
--> If you have a question or comment about moderation, use the "Alert a Moderator" button
left of every post, or send a PM. Do not post such comments/questions on-thread. Thank you.
N.B. Please do not alter the above message.
--> If you have a question or comment about moderation, use the "Alert a Moderator" button
left of every post, or send a PM. Do not post such comments/questions on-thread. Thank you. N.B. Please do not alter the above message.
• • • • •
[Please post
NLY status updates and relevant Q&A here.]Plaintiff: George Lagen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Defendant: United Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc.
Filed In The United States District Court For The Northern District Of Illinois Eastern Division
Case No. 1:12-cv-04056
Filed: 05/24/2012
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber
Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim
Proposed class: All persons, as of midnight, December 31, 2011, who were members of the Million Mile Program under United Airlines’ Mileage Plus frequent flyer program.
Filings/rulings can be found on www.pacer.gov (requires registration)
12 June 2012 - Amended Class Action Complaint filed
Spring 2013 - Court denies United's request to close case
Spring 2013 - Plaintiff files for suit to become a class action, United asks Judge before he decides if there could be limited discovery (which typically happens after case becomes class-action). Judge allows it.
August 2013 - Depositions/Limited Discovery completed and transcripts were handed over to the court.
22 October 2013 - Pursuant to an order of the Court, both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment:
Plaintiff contends that he is a United pre-merger Million Miler, that United promised Million Miler fliers certain lifetime benefits on its web site, including two regional upgrades every year and Premier Executive status, which provided certain delineated benefits (e.g., 100% mileage bonus). Plaintiff cites deposition testimony from United stating "lifetime" means: "as long as they were really able to fly … as long as someone is coming on a plane and alive and capable of flying." Plaintiff concludes by stating that United has breached its contract with its pre-merger Million Miler fliers by reducing the lifetime benefits they were promised.
United contends in its motion that Million Miler is part of the MileagePlus program, that United reserved the right to make any changes it wishes to the MileagePlus program, and that the changes it made that plaintiff now complains of are therefore contractually permissible. United does not admit, and does not address, the "lifetime" benefit statements that it made on its website.
23 January 2014 - Judge denies Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grants United's cross-motion for summary judgment. Judgment entered in favor of United.
The Judge begins his Opinion with a quote from Job: “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away” and then holds that Plaintiff has not produced any evidence that UA made him an offer to participate in a separate MM program.
The Court noted that: “The sum total of his evidence is vague references to ‘electronic and written correspondence’ from United, which, in both instances postdates his qualification as a Million Mile flyer and was not directed to him; and a 1997 Newsletter from United announcing the creation of the program he could not remember receiving. However the card he did receive from United, admitting him to MililionMile Flyer Program, shows that his new status is clearly a status within the Mileage Plus Frequent Flyer Program, as does the form letters United sent to applicants advising them of their admission to the MillionMile Flyer program. In fact, Plaintiff in his Complaint alleges that the MillionMile Flyer program was part of the Mileage Plus program. He has not produced any document that comes close to substantiating that the programs were separate and distinct."
Bottom line: The Court agreed with United's position that the Plaintiff had not proved the existence of a separate contract between itself and the Million Milers.
Full decision: http://media.wandr.me/MMerOpinion.pdf
20 February 2014
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's decision. The record on appeal is due by March 13, 2014.
Appeal docs available at:
- http://media.wandr.me/UAL-MM-Appeal-filed-2-20-14.pdf
- http://media.wandr.me/UAL-MM-letter-of-appeal.pdf
8 September 2014
Oral arguments were heard by a three judge panel. Links to the original MP3 of the Court's recording and also some transcription can be found around post 2350 and for several more following that.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/23496499-post2361.html
22 December 2014
Affirmed over a dissent.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D12-22/C:14-1375:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:1474449:S:0
Million Miler Sues United [Judgment for UA Jan 2014] Judgment Affirmed Dec 2014
Mar 7, 2014, 12:58 am
#2176
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Usually in SAN or Central Europe.
Programs: AA:EXP/1MM. Accor/Radisson:Silver; HH:Gold; ICH:Plt Amb.
Posts: 22,322
Does anyone have those brochures received from 1997-2005ish confirming the existence of the "Million Miles and More Program" to send anonymously to the law firm or set it up as web documents? I don't have any printed records of what United sent to us with regards to the MM Flyer program. I had saved everything but threw them away sometime around 2010.
Mar 7, 2014, 4:31 am
#2177
Join Date: May 2005
Programs: Million Miler, 1K - Basically spend a lot of time on planes
Posts: 2,202
Bottom line is whether or not it was "legal" or not, United decided to remove something that they promised they would give. If you do xyz, we will give you xyz for life...
Ok, we've changed our mind..
Legal or not, it's still crap
Ok, we've changed our mind..
Legal or not, it's still crap
Mar 7, 2014, 4:38 am
#2178
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: body: A stone's throw from SFO, mind: SE Asia
Programs: Some of this 'n some of that
Posts: 17,263
If I get through the year without a UA segment I expect I'll subsequently receive a slightly smaller sizer that won't actually fit the paper weight.
Mar 7, 2014, 6:44 am
#2179
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 1,653
There you go again, misreading what people write, and in this instance, what the judge wrote.
The quote I cited came directly from the judge's decision. Let me enter it here again, "At this stage of the litigation, the court finds it plausible that defendants had a contract with Million Miler members which differed from the contract they had with other Mileage Plus members."
The key word used by the judge was the word "plausible" which makes your statement false.
You further said, "That the Plaintiff, largely through his own ignorance/arrogance, failed provide that proof to the judge is the reason why the judge granted UA's SJ motion."
Accusing the plaintiff of "ignorance/arrogance" serves no purpose except to reflect on your own misinterpretation of what the judge wrote.
-
The quote I cited came directly from the judge's decision. Let me enter it here again, "At this stage of the litigation, the court finds it plausible that defendants had a contract with Million Miler members which differed from the contract they had with other Mileage Plus members."
The key word used by the judge was the word "plausible" which makes your statement false.
You further said, "That the Plaintiff, largely through his own ignorance/arrogance, failed provide that proof to the judge is the reason why the judge granted UA's SJ motion."
Accusing the plaintiff of "ignorance/arrogance" serves no purpose except to reflect on your own misinterpretation of what the judge wrote.
-
The Court held that at that early stage of the litigation it was plausible that
there, was in fact, an additional contract between United and its Million Mile customers that did not give United the right unilaterally to reduce benefits and that Plaintiff had adequately alleged a contract, breach and damages. The Court, however, did point out that “as the case proceeds, it will be Plaintiff’s
burden to prove (not plead) that a contract exists between Plaintiff’s proposed Million Miler class and United that differs from the Mileage Plus contract.
there, was in fact, an additional contract between United and its Million Mile customers that did not give United the right unilaterally to reduce benefits and that Plaintiff had adequately alleged a contract, breach and damages. The Court, however, did point out that “as the case proceeds, it will be Plaintiff’s
burden to prove (not plead) that a contract exists between Plaintiff’s proposed Million Miler class and United that differs from the Mileage Plus contract.
In fact, Plaintiff in his Complaint alleges that the MillionMile Flyer program was part of the Mileage Plus program. He has not produced any document that comes close to substantiating that the programs were separate and distinct.
Mar 7, 2014, 7:10 am
#2180
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS MVPG100K, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,490
Mar 7, 2014, 8:23 am
#2181
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Van down by the river
Programs: UA GS, AA EXP, Marriott PP/LT Plat, Golden Circle Diamond
Posts: 718
Let's say I was a MMer.
If I am Plat/1K/GS I get the higher tier benefit as part of the M+ program. But, if I am also a MMer my spouse attains that status as perk.
Seems there are plenty of subtle differences that show the MMer program is different terms than M+ alone.
If I am Plat/1K/GS I get the higher tier benefit as part of the M+ program. But, if I am also a MMer my spouse attains that status as perk.
Seems there are plenty of subtle differences that show the MMer program is different terms than M+ alone.
Mar 7, 2014, 8:59 am
#2182
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,877
Caveat emptor.
Last edited by DelrayChris; Mar 7, 2014 at 9:08 am
Mar 7, 2014, 9:01 am
#2183
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Programs: UA 1K 3 Million/ex-many year GS, AA PLT/2 Mil, AS MVPG, HH Dia, Starwood Life Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,401
Let's say I was a MMer.
If I am Plat/1K/GS I get the higher tier benefit as part of the M+ program. But, if I am also a MMer my spouse attains that status as perk.
Seems there are plenty of subtle differences that show the MMer program is different terms than M+ alone.
If I am Plat/1K/GS I get the higher tier benefit as part of the M+ program. But, if I am also a MMer my spouse attains that status as perk.
Seems there are plenty of subtle differences that show the MMer program is different terms than M+ alone.
By the way - folks new to the thread might do well to review the arguments early on that disagree on what was actually taken away in the new MM awards. I think everyone (well its FT so I'm sure not everyone) agreed that the annual 2 RPUs were distinctly promised and taken away. However, the case for other benefits is much less clear in that it depends on what you believe the old benefits were. Some of us actually believe that UA's old promise was to make MMers forever equivalent to at least those who flew 50K per year which is what they did. Others disagree - there are at least reasonable arguments on both sides of that question.
Mar 7, 2014, 9:35 am
#2184
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: AADULtArer
Posts: 5,724
FT has become rank with the stench of the embittered who make this mistake over and over again and expect different results.
Mar 7, 2014, 9:47 am
#2185
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
Would you be upset if UA cut off all your elite and UGS benefits tomorrow if they could because there is no contract in place, or would you applaud them for the revenue enhancement?
Mar 7, 2014, 9:50 am
#2186
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,172
Mar 7, 2014, 10:28 am
#2187
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CO hublette
Programs: UA AU MM,HH Diamond,Hyatt Globalist , Marriott Gold
Posts: 2,283
Mar 7, 2014, 10:45 am
#2188
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,743
Yes! As it describes (probably) all loyalty programs.
Being upset by a business decision does not mean that a law or a contract was violated.
Would you be upset if UA cut off all your elite and UGS benefits tomorrow if they could because there is no contract in place, or would you applaud them for the revenue enhancement?
Mar 7, 2014, 11:16 am
#2189
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ORD
Programs: 1K, MM, Marriott Plat
Posts: 427
Honestly, the cost to UALdbaCO to solve this would probably be comparatively small and go a long way towards goodwill and basic business customer trust but have seen $misek has no interest in customers and loyalty. To me, it's not about contracts or what "xyz" is, it is about a company's (and its management's) word.
OK, I vented, so all can go back to the legal arguments and keep the attorneys happy...
Mar 7, 2014, 11:33 am
#2190
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
+1 ...and if you go back and read and understand Colpuck's idealogical stance it is always for UALdbaCO and against this action, it's probably time just to not respond to his posts. Either you believe in someone's (UALdbaCO) word/statement or you don't. Colpuck obviously believes that what someone tells them as a basis for a future action makes no difference in life. So be it...
United told me if I did x, I would get Y for life, I did X and they took away Y.
United told me if I did x, I would get Y for life, I did X and they took away Y.