Originally Posted by Always Flyin

When you say, "less than honest", I assume you really mean immoral, particularly here when there is ambiguity as to whether UA had the right to make changes to vested benefits or not.

The law does not enforce moral obligations--only legal ones.

My belief is that the pre-merger UA Million Milers were vested in the promised benefits and United is contractually prohibited from taking away those benefits (i.e., two regional upgrades a year). The court is being asked to enforce that purported breach of contract. We'll see what the court ultimately does (or what the settlement will be).

But the court must deal with the ambiguity between one term that says UA can change the terms of the program at will and another that says Million Miler get specified benefits.

By the way, there is no fiduciary relationship between United and its passengers so therefore no issue of breach of fiduciary duty.

To resolve that ambiguity, I expect the court will fund that those who had actually earned Million Miler before the changes took place are entitled to retain those benefits, but those who had not were not vested (i.e., had not actually earned the benefits yet) and United was free to change the terms of the contract as to them.

Any other decision, IMHO, would require the court to ignore portions of the contract, which it should not do if they can be reconciled.

By the way, there is no fiduciary relationship between United and its passengers so the issue of any breach of fiduciary duty does not exist here.