As many of you know, in May of 2003, American will be charging 25% more mniles for certain award tickets.

I know the mice print says we can change anything at any time, even make YOU pay US for the miles, take your firstborn, blah blah blah. I also know that just 'cause it's in writing don't make it enforceable. Call me naive, but how can they get away with this?

If memory serves, the last time they tried this they ran headlong into a massive class action lawsuit that eventually prevented them from devaluing existing miles. Why is this time different?

Before all you In-A-Free-Market-Businesses-Are-Free-To-Stay-Up-Late-Nights-Thinking-Up-Newly-Creative-Ways-To-Screw-You types jump in, answer this: What if these were not airline miles, but instead something like groceries? So instead of having 500,000 airline miles (originally) worth $10,000, I had 500,000 Grocery Points redeemable for $10,000 in produce, eggs, and milk? And what if I had spent a lot of money getting those Grocery Points because of advertising encouraging me to acquire them because of what they could be redeemed for? And then one day, Ralph's or whoever is running the promotion says Sorry, we've decided they're only good for dried turnips? Do you think people would just go, "Oh well, F me. Better luck next time?" Or do you think they're be Ralph's execs hanging from the nearest lamppost? Do you think that would be legal?

As a Californian familiar with our state consumer protection laws, I can answer unequivocally: No. It wouldn't be. In my state, it's not even legal for gift cards to expire -- EVER -- even though it clearly states that they're no good after a certain date.

Does this mean that I think companies should have to honor their commitments even when they're stock is in the toilet, they're hemorraging money, and they find out they were way too generous in the first place?

If we're talking about previously earned benefits, yes. That's exactly what I think.