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
Feb 1, 2013, 1:04 pm
#961
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago USA
Programs: *A Junkie, SQ PPS, Skywards Gold, 2 Million Mile Flyer;*wood LT Plat, BA MM
Posts: 1,762
So was this coming to the point it has come. We shall see, you may be right or you may be wrong...it will either be one or the other.
I think for those who were close to the PMUA MMiler mark should contact the plaintiff's lawyer and tell him to include you if possible, as a few have told me they have done. The squeaky wheel gets the most attention...
Good luck everyone!
UG
Last edited by iluv2fly; Feb 1, 2013 at 1:29 pm Reason: merge
Feb 1, 2013, 1:08 pm
#962
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wherever
Programs: UA 1MM for a while now, AS for a minute, BAEC newly minted Gold
Posts: 1,172
deleted
Last edited by cyborg; Jun 2, 2018 at 5:17 am Reason: Moving on from Flyertalk
Feb 1, 2013, 1:10 pm
#963
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,909
I really wish the plaintiff had made the inclusion of those within 10% of BIS on UA metal. Those, like me, were so close we could smell it and then it was yanked out from under us. How are we less damaged than those that were at the actual 1MM level? We flew UA to get those benefits for many, many years spending thousands and thousands of dollars to grasp the ring. I am still tracking my actual UA BIS miles so I still know exactly where I stand at this point.
Feb 1, 2013, 1:28 pm
#964
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,358
I really wish the plaintiff had made the inclusion of those within 10% of BIS on UA metal. Those, like me, were so close we could smell it and then it was yanked out from under us. How are we less damaged than those that were at the actual 1MM level? We flew UA to get those benefits for many, many years spending thousands and thousands of dollars to grasp the ring. I am still tracking my actual UA BIS miles so I still know exactly where I stand at this point.
-
However, in the case you described above, I totally agree with you when you stated that those who were close to achieving the million-mile goal were also "shafted" to use my choice of a vulgar term.
As Urbane Gent suggested, perhaps if you (and many others) contact the attorney for the plaintiff, he will include this issue among the points to resolve during negotiations with UA.
If you and others say and do nothing, nothing will be done. Clearly, whoever at UA who approved the changes to devalue the million-mile program can "undue" them just as easily as the changes were made (and breached).
This is one of those rare occasions when it is possible to "un ring the bell" so to speak. The key is to seize the moment and do what you can to bring this injustice to the discussion table.
-
Feb 1, 2013, 1:35 pm
#965
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago
Programs: AA EXP, UA former 1K (1.9MM and gone), Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Diamond, SPG Plat
Posts: 1,111
I really wish the plaintiff had made the inclusion of those within 10% of BIS on UA metal. Those, like me, were so close we could smell it and then it was yanked out from under us. How are we less damaged than those that were at the actual 1MM level? We flew UA to get those benefits for many, many years spending thousands and thousands of dollars to grasp the ring. I am still tracking my actual UA BIS miles so I still know exactly where I stand at this point.
Perhaps this could be the basis for another class action suit? Maybe the same lawyers would take it after they settle this one. Would any of the legal experts here like to opine as to whether participating in this class (those who already achieved an MM level) would preclude litigation in a new similar, but different class (those working towards an MM level)?
Feb 1, 2013, 1:42 pm
#966
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: IAH
Programs: UA 2MM, Hyatt Diamond, SPG Gold
Posts: 2,164
Opt out of the class ?
I'm not an attorney and I don't play one on the internet ... Most of what I know about class action suits is from the various ones where I've been notified I'm part of the class ...
It's been alluded to in at least one previous post, but I'd be interested in the pros and cons of being a class member.
If the suit is settled, as a class member, you're bound by whatever the settlement is - if it's a travel certificate or miles, that's what you get. You're not able to pursue any claims on your own.
If you're not a class member, you don't get whatever the settlement is, but you're free to go after UA on your own.
If the settlement is not some token, but instead is a restoration of some or all of the lost benefits, wouldn't it be likely a MMer would receive those benefits regardless of if they were part of the class or not ? I guess it's conceivable a "Class Member Elite" program could be created so only class members got the restored benefits, but I'm not sure how practical that is.
There's also the question of the new benefits, such as spousal status or GS for 4MM. Someone might prefer those benefits over those offered in the old program. Is opting out of the class action a way to (try to) preserve them ?
I suppose it's premature to worry about this too much, as we don't know for a fact there will be a settlement or what it will offer, or what happens if this actually goes to trial, but I'd like to hear any thoughts.
It's been alluded to in at least one previous post, but I'd be interested in the pros and cons of being a class member.
If the suit is settled, as a class member, you're bound by whatever the settlement is - if it's a travel certificate or miles, that's what you get. You're not able to pursue any claims on your own.
If you're not a class member, you don't get whatever the settlement is, but you're free to go after UA on your own.
If the settlement is not some token, but instead is a restoration of some or all of the lost benefits, wouldn't it be likely a MMer would receive those benefits regardless of if they were part of the class or not ? I guess it's conceivable a "Class Member Elite" program could be created so only class members got the restored benefits, but I'm not sure how practical that is.
There's also the question of the new benefits, such as spousal status or GS for 4MM. Someone might prefer those benefits over those offered in the old program. Is opting out of the class action a way to (try to) preserve them ?
I suppose it's premature to worry about this too much, as we don't know for a fact there will be a settlement or what it will offer, or what happens if this actually goes to trial, but I'd like to hear any thoughts.
Feb 1, 2013, 1:48 pm
#967
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: AADULtArer
Posts: 5,690
I find it comical that so many people were incredibly wrong in their thoughts on the direction the class action would take.
As I find comical the lack of understanding of how the top level officers in a corporation work.
Given the potential financial liability to UA of this action is near 0, the top level guys at UA gave this one to Legal when it came out and are focussing on operational issues and competitive issues, not a whiny lawsuit. In particular, Jeff's ego is not going to be a factor on this.
Feb 1, 2013, 1:50 pm
#968
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,909
So, without having to go back through nearly 1000 posts in this thread to look for something that may not be there, does anybody have the contact information for the plaintiff's lawyers?
Feb 1, 2013, 2:03 pm
#969
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: BUR / LAX
Programs: UA MM/Gold; WN A-list; HH something depending; Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,554
I did email them and send a letter at the beginning but never received a response. Perhaps time to try again.
Feb 1, 2013, 2:05 pm
#970
Moderator: Mileage Run, United Airlines; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The City/Honolulu
Programs: UA 3MM; Hyatt Glob*****; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,473
It would be great, but like those within spitting distance of MM, what about those in spitting distance of 2MM or 3MM? I'd love to be able to have the RCC (now UC) "lifetime" status. Is that yet another class or would that be subset of the separate MM Program?
Feb 1, 2013, 2:20 pm
#971
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,358
Long before there was ever a class action filed, a group of us Flyertalk members repeatedly attempted to have the demotions and breach of our million-mile lifetime promises rescinded.
We initially followed the customary chain of command by writing and/or calling to customer service. In response, we received canned answers to our telephone calls and written objections. Those answers from UA often did not make any sense nor did the responses address our concerns.
Later, UA began to included outright false statements in e-mails that were supposedly written to answer our concerns.
As time passed with more nonsensical responses from "customer service" some of us wrote to Jeffrey Foland, the then president of Mileage Plus. We initially received responses/answers from his assistant that were false and misleading.
I and others eventually personally wrote to Jeffrey Foland. I received a personal e-mail from Mr. Foland telling me that the screen shots that I furnished to him (those screen shots that showed specific lifetime promises to million-milers) would not be honored because they were a mistake. Remember, those screen shots remained on united.com for at least one year until October of 2011.
In February of 2011, Mr. Foland was interviewed by a reporter from the WSJ. Mr. Foland was specifically asked about the screen shots. He was not truthful to the reporter when he stated that there was never any "particular" lifetime promise made to million-milers. When asked about the language of the screen shots, Mr. Foland told the reporter that the screen shots were "confusing and regrettable." As we all know, the screen shots, despite appearing on united.com for at least one year and despite the screen shots making specific lifetime promises, were breached by UA.
Finally, out of frustration at being misled, several of us wrote to Jeffery Smisek. Although Smisek never responded to our e-mails, he had his personal secretary assure us that he had read our correspondence and would personally look into the fairness of the demotions made to the Mileage Plus program.
Some of us called Smisek's personal secretary several times because we never received an e-mail response from Smisek or his personal secretary.
Each time I called Smisek's personal secretary, I was assured that he had personally read our complaints and that he would get back to us. He never did.
In other words, Smisek read our complaints, chose not to answer us, and allowed the Mileage Plus program to be devalued and the million-mile program to be breached.
So there, now you know the rest of the story and why Smisek is very much aware of the demotion and breach of the million-mile program.
-
Feb 1, 2013, 2:24 pm
#972
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: LAX/SNA
Programs: AA, Hilton Gold
Posts: 3,887
Feb 1, 2013, 2:33 pm
#973
Moderator: Mileage Run, United Airlines; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The City/Honolulu
Programs: UA 3MM; Hyatt Glob*****; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,473
Feb 1, 2013, 2:45 pm
#974
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: LAX/SNA
Programs: AA, Hilton Gold
Posts: 3,887
Feb 1, 2013, 2:50 pm
#975
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,358
As I find comical the lack of understanding of how the top level officers in a corporation work.
Given the potential financial liability to UA of this action is near 0, the top level guys at UA gave this one to Legal when it came out and are focussing on operational issues and competitive issues, not a whiny lawsuit. In particular, Jeff's ego is not going to be a factor on this.
Last week, UA released its operational and financial data. The numbers were terrible considering the fact that the merger took place more than two years ago.
The presented numbers separated the fourth quarter and also included the full year for 2012.
Prior to the merger of UA & CO they are described by the press as “a merger of equals” which caused an expectation that after the 2010 merger, 2012 would be a good year for the combined airlines, both operationally and financially.
However, that was not the case.
During 2012, there was a major exodus of elites to other air carriers because of a severe devaluation of the Mileage Plus program and an overall disorganization of running the combined airlines as well as disdain shown toward loyal elites who were described by UA’s CFO as “over entitled.”.
The above factors caused a major reduction in expected revenue and traffic for UA. There were countless other poor decisions made by the new UA management that further reduced its operational performance. One major factor is the peculiar concept of customer loyalty recognition being no longer a factor within UA.
Due to the poor performance and general decline of the airlines, this “whiny lawsuit” to quote you, will have a greater impact on the already damaged image of UA.
If you really think that the top management is not concerned that UA lost the Motion to Dismiss, you might want to rethink the issue.
-