FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - MP Accounts Closed by UA Alleging Fraud/Misuse
Old Jan 29, 14, 6:29 pm
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Oakland, California, USA
Programs: AA PLT,AS,UA PP,J6,FB,EY,LH,SQ,HH Dmd,Hyatt Expl,Marriott Plat,IHG Plat,Accor Gold
Posts: 10,495
Originally Posted by GoAmtrak View Post
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.
Originally Posted by GoAmtrak View Post
That would be wrong. I still wonder (again, without seeing the full picture), why MP handled this via summary closure without any kind of warning or inquiry.
Originally Posted by villox View Post
Because maybe they felt they had enough evidence to do so.

From other people who've posted on here in the past about accounts being closed, it does seem they have a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. One could certainly argue that they are a bit shortsighted in this regard as they may be giving up a ton of revenue by taking this action and driving this company full of HVFs away from United, but then it wouldn't be the first decision like this.
Originally Posted by vkykam View Post
I think the fact that it was multiple accounts sharing an address, with multiple last names, and the "cross-benefits" that was happening such as rental car miles depositing and not matching names, or one person using another account's miles, caused the red flags. I can see how United would see this as pooling and frown upon it, but I do also agree that the actions were drastic and that United should have at least warned before axing. I highly doubt they would have caught on if all the addresses were different...

There are days when I wonder whether SMI/J is actively looking to cut $2B in costs, or $2B in revenue...
Based on what we now know, I can understand UA raising questions about all this. But I agree that cutting off all of these accounts really does seem like a revenue-cutting strategy. The real test will be whether UA restores the miles and accounts after the OP (and her colleagues) explain the situation...and whether UA has the sense and flexibility to respond appropriately. Otherwise, just add this to the long list of how SMI/J and company are seeking to alienate customers.
Thunderroad is offline