Originally Posted by lincolnjkc

I'm not a lawyer, but given previous holdings on the ADA and the broad preemption language "...may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a [...] service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation under this subpart." (49 USC 41713(b)(1) and (b)(4)(A))

I think it's pretty tough, especially in light of previous holdings on the ADA to argue that the Clubs aren't a "service" of an air carrier -- its not inconceivable that the "service" at play here can be distinguished from the "service" in, e.g., American v. Wollens -- but it doesn't seem like it's that easy of a distinction to make -- both the FQTV program and Club are clearly ancillary services that aren't intrinsic to the basic air transportation. A further nail, from my perspective, is that Wollens cites Morales v. TWA as "...defin[ing] the 'relating to' language in the ADA preemption clause as 'having a connection with or reference to airline `rates, routes, or services'."

Clearly the primary purpose of the clubs is to attract/retain and make comfortable certain customers of the airline service and I think that would pull it in to the "relating to..." preemption language in that it has a connection with and reference to the airline services. (The fact that UA has been requiring a BP on any airline for the past couple years would seem to strengthen that relationship, IMO)

Not that I agree with the "lifetime isn't lifetime" posture (and I really don't like the move for the couple times a year I can't fly UA for whatever reason) but I don't think getting around the ADA is likely to be a successful endeavor.