I just listened to the whole thing and transcribed most of it (needs a lot of editing but I'll try to get it up here in the morning). Judge Wood clearly understands the program quite well. She even cited ORD-IAH as 1950 miles off the top of her head.
Wood: But he really just wants the same status. Because as someone who follows United's tiers more than I should, even Platinum isn't the old fashioned Premier Executive. They change stuff all the time taking advantage of the reservation of rights. Next year [Lagan] may think he really belongs in 1K if he wants the upgrades as often as he used to receive them when he first became a Million Mile flyer. Essentially what you want to say is there's a list of benefits that existed in 2006 that went along with getting Million Mile status and those should be replicated. But I thought that United had also sweetened the pot in some ways.
Lagan: No, Your Honor.
Wood: The spouses, right? He can designate somebody?
Yes, Your Honor, that is correct.
Wood: And that was not the case, right?
Lagan: In this particular case it doesn't pertain as our appellant doesn't have a spouse.
Wood: Not everybody gets to use every benefit. But if United says we used to make use Premier Executive with this package of benefits and now we're going to make u premier Gold but we're going to let you designate a significant other, you know, whether you have one or not and whether this person flies with you all the time can't really be United's problem.
Lagan: Yes, Your Honor, but what can be United's problem is that they offered lifetime benefits.
I think the attorney here got caught trying to pretend that then things they don't care about don't really exist. No idea if that hurts them eventually.
The judges did hammer UA's attorney a bit on their ability to just pull the plug completely on the program. Her response was basically that they could, but it would be stupid. And also that if they did so the lawsuit for doing so would be preempted by DoT jurisdiction.
Wood: They could say "We're still giving a spouse," until they decide to change that. But there is nothing guaranteed for lifetime under your view.
UA: That is correct, subject to, again, the DoT's ability to bring an enforcement action if it thinks the practices are fraudulent or deceptive or unfair and also subject again to the competitive market fores that Congress has said are what should govern the airline industry in general. If were UA were to eliminate the MM flyer program completely that's certainly going to have an impact on its business and that's not what it did here; let's also remember that.
Hamilton: But you're claiming it has the rtight to do so.
UA: Yes, that is true.
Posner closed out asking if Lagan checked the rules on the DL MM program when making the change. His attorney didn't have an answer.