Originally Posted by
billdokes
If it's the case I think you're referring to, that did not happen after 1 instance, but after many and in the end he was re-instated without consequence.
"Many" is not a word I'd use to describe "5".
And as one example of why stuff like this is risky, one of the cases involved him doing something like entering the MLL with a YYZ-YOW BP, plans changed, he cancelled that, then booked and flew YYZ-YUL. Another example was when he entered the MLL before midnight and flew after midnight (i.e. different calendar day).
So I've just explained 40% of the alleged cases, showing it was their tracking and data analysis that was bad. I think the other three had "merit" in the sense that he actually didn't fly, but then that gets into a discussion about what the rules are. And maybe intent.
This thread is about intentionally doing something that everyone agrees the tariff says you can't do.
AC has gone after people for things that:
1. aren't against any rules, and
2. didn't actually happen
Do you really want to risk being the person they decide to single out, where you'd need an expensive lawyer, and don't have the benefit of being able to say "that isn't against the rules" or "that didn't happen" ?
If you asked me today if AC would care if you bought a ticket, used the MLL, then cancelled the ticket, I'd probably still say "no". And that it's probably safe to do. But that doesn't mean nothing could possibly happen to you.