Originally Posted by
Fanjet
Yes. As far as UA is concerned, none of these people could even be aware that they have these accounts in their name. It's one thing for a company's travel department to book reservations for its employees and put in their FF information. It's another to control these accounts outright. What's to stop this "administrator" from using all of the miles in these accounts for himself/herself?
As noted in many upthread examples, you could substitute "family" for "company" and "immediate relatives" for "employees" instead. There are too many grey areas, and this course of action by MP seems very drastic. They could have instead sought to contact each individual member (via the administrator if necessary) to get verbal assurances from each member that the arrangement was consensual. Without having more than the OP's word to go on, the response seems disproportionate and ultimately counterproductive if this corporate spend is going away as a result.
