Originally Posted by
Often1
"subject to availability." If UA chooses to sell F seats for $1 and they get snapped up by people with a 2012 birthday on a Tuesday, UA is fully covered.
Is it really surprising that UA is phasing out CPU's given capacity cuts, -UP fares, paid F and pre-departure discounted FC sales?
Wrong. Subject to availability is not a license to do whatever UA wants. If one follows your logic, then UA can simply take away all the miles, and upgrade instruments because it can also change T&Cs at any time. But it's highly unlikely that that's how even a very conservative court would construe MP T&Cs. So, nice try, but no.
EDIT: Also, you are conflating the issues. Nobody is saying that it's surprising that UA wants to phase out CPU or that UA can't phase out CPU. The issue is that "phasing" CPU out in the manner UA chose is unlawful. And too bad that FFs are too busy to sue.