I mentioned it in an earlier post, but to add a bit more here, I doubt that this was a financial statement/earnings decision. Miles are accounted for as a contingency liability at around 1 cent per mile. For a contingency liability to be stated, the miles would have to exist. As you rightfully point out, they don't so it would not be recorded. No argument.

However, materiality levels are based on auditor's judgement so it is not disclosed, but for simplicity say 1/2% of quarterly revenue. (Typically quarterly statements will have a higher materiality level because there is less impact, but ignore that.)

So the materiality for UA at the definite low end might be around $3.5 million. I can't imagine at 1 cent a mile that this targeted promotion incorrectly posting would have a material impact on recording a contingent liability.

As a disclosure, I have not read United's financials so I could be off on some of the above statements, but shouldn't greatly impact anything.

I completely agree with the assertion that UA did this because of a true monetary impact, I just do not agree with the assertion that it was related to Q2 financial statement earnings.