Originally Posted by
Fredd
You and other legal experts have made very clear the potential dichotomy between what’s moral and what’s potentially legal.
UA has made this mess for itself. I don’t
own that problem. UA does. UA had no reluctance about "screwing" PMUA MMs such as me.
All I can do at this point is demand any contractual rights owed
me as a PMUA Million Mile Flyer, if they exist.
Anybody who reviews the
original thread can see that the vast majority of PMCO MMs posting were thrilled at what they sadly believed to be increased benefits, i.e. “Oh boy, now we get to board at the same time as the credit card holders!”
The scales have fallen from many eyes.
Are you perhaps a PMCO Million Miler? Why don’t you propose what you think is fair for you? If you don't get what you want, you no doubt have the ability to launch your own suit.
I wish nothing less than what is
fair for all customers. You have reminded me that "the law is not fair."
you are correct. you are entitled to benefits of contractual deal you have with United. If you indeed have a contract.
I was merely pointing out that his solution benefits one group at the expense of another who was just as entitled possibly as the other.
Originally Posted by
pigx5
What do they lost?
1 piece/50 pound of luggage allowance -> 3 pieces/70 pound?
no lounge access->lounge access?
Economy plus at check-in become at booking?
What do they lose?
25% bonus become 50%
CPU window 24 hrs-> 48 hrs
CO MMers lost, I think more than PMUA million milers lost. but this is not the place to discuss that. there is a generic million milers thread where that has been discussed at length.
Originally Posted by
Always Flyin
You claim you're a lawyer. Go do your own research and feel free to tell me what I got wrong.
So do you my brother. I didn't say you were wrong, I said you failed to support your claim. A good lawyer uses language precisely.
Originally Posted by
Fredd
Really? It's very clear the judge denied a motion by the defendants to dismiss the case. It's very clear that the extent of the judge's ruling is that it might be "plausible" that UA breached a contract.
It's very clear that all this does is to leave a door open for the plaintiff to proceed toward discovery and a trial.
Do you really think that "many others" are seriously misunderstanding this?
Yes we do.
For example, I could walk into court tomorrow and sue you for battery because of the bar fight we got into last night. Now there is no merit to that case because we didn't get into a bar fight last night. (AFAIK we haven't met)
BUT if I properly laid out a complaint for battery it would survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss exactly as the plaintiff did here.
A proper complaint is different from the complaint actually having merit.