Originally Posted by
richarddd
Why would that be the case? Granting a one-off exemption, on a discretionary non-public basis, would not obligate them to do the same for someone else in a similar position. They can do whatever they want, so long as they don't violate published rules. Look at the CK invitation thread - AA may have internal guidelines, but the third parties (such as FT readers) it can look like they are treating similar people in different ways.
I disagree with the premise and with the likely outcome.
AA should have a fair trading approach to its dealings with its customers. Meek people who would not even remotely think of asking should not be treated differently than someone ready to mount a massive social media campaign over a status.
I also no longer believe in the concept of "non public" Once upon a time, all kinds of things likely got taken care of. Today, just look at FT and ask yourself what the thread would look like if someone here had OP's rough situation and got his EXP last week? I am not suggesting that OP has any malicious intent in this regard, but one certainly can't presume that there aren't a lot of people out there who do.