That poster (who, BTW, does write with the point of view of a lawyer, even if his posts sometimes appear to be written from some new-fangled x-pad/pod from a Starbuck's without the benefit of keyboard, spell checking, or the ability to review the whole post) provides some inconvenient points of view.
Some people think faster than they can type. So, the words occasionally tumble out onto the screen in a slightly underdeveloped style.
Originally Posted by
Fredd
It's all a moot point, anyway, since according to the "legalistic" arguments of some, "lifetime" has no meaning anyway.
No, lifetime has a meaning. If UA killed the MM program and all lifetime benefits there would be a cause of action, I think. But, as to what it means specifically, I have no idea. The plaintiff in the hypothetical lawsuit would have to show that the benefits as provided on a whole are unreasonable in light of past benefits. It does not seem possible. It has to be shown that the spousal benefit is unreasonable compared to the certs. that's difficult if not impossible. Remember that's unreasonable on the whole, not just to you.
UA could easily remedy this problem by stating a person can elect on a yearly basis either to take the certs available at their MM level in addition to what they earn throughout the year or the spousal benefit.