That is more Citi focused and the mods there seem more inclined to delete posts saying "Good, you got what was coming to you" even if they try to explain why gaming the system was wrong.

If AA wrongly cancels someone's flight (or even many peoples' flights) they are not going to get fined an amount that is meaningful to their bottom line.

That does not mean that it's ok, nor does it mean that the people whose flights got canceled will not be compensated.

If the DOT were to rule that AA is engaging in unfair and deceptive business practices here, what do you think will happen? They will issue an EO to cease and desist, fine them a million or two, and AA will offer compensation to those people who were affected. People who don't receive reasonable offers will sue (or, at least, should sue) and most will be settled for a reasonable amount. A serious fine will only happen if AA disregards an EO.

In some cases DOT can impose a fine on an airline but customers don't get compensation in any form. Sitting more than three hours on the tarmac is an example.

Don't forget this one: https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/eo-2015-11-3 Standard AA policy of "We can do whatever we want and the laws don't apply to us".

Technically the DOT did not order them to compensate passengers (that's not within their powers) but AA did agree to compensate the passengers in exchange for not getting hit with a monster fine.

Potato, PotAAto

Maybe you could try harder and find some DOT ruling more on point, even if involving another carrier. Again, separate your personal gripe here from what I suspect is a sharp mind and use it uninfluenced by your personal gripe. None of these links have anything to do with the situation churners are facing and they aren’t going to get you anywhere with the DOT. At best your argument by citing these seems to be that “AA has done something improper before that was subject to DOT jurisdiction, so they must have done something wrong here.” That isn’t how legal or regulatory practice works. Cite these in a brief or complaint and a summer associate could illustrate why they are all distinguishable from the conduct at issue here.

Again I ask— Where are all the lawsuits? People definitely have potential damages now that flights across oceans are being cancelled...

This has been going less than a month, it is ongoing, and regulatory complaints via CFPB and DOT (and potentially states Attorneys Generals) have yet to really begin.

You are missing the point. The post that I quoted puts it in context.

The post that I was responding to was claiming that AA wouldn't have done this if there was any risk of running afoul of regulators. The point is, they get fined by regulators about twice a year, so that claim is ridiculous.

In other words, the argument being put forward is that AA has clearly thought this through, so the fact that they are going through with it is evidence that that they are on solid ground. The list of previous fines show that that argument does not hold water.

Completely by chance I found a post from the individual in question who was totally sure that Lufthansa's attorneys would never be wrong on the airline's ability to sue for damages in Europe for people who dropped a leg of a ticket.

And, as you know, we will never find out. LH sued in the wrong court, its case was dismissed and ultimately dropped.

That is why AA is likely smarter than suing scammers for damages, but simply shutting down their accounts and possibly cancelling live tickets purchased from those accounts. That puts the shoe on the account holder and, for the most part, in a country where its Supreme Court has made it very, very, tough to proceed.

She's not a robot, she's a human with human emotions. Decisions are made all the time, at company level, with human emotions factored in. See below.

Exactly.
Who's to say that going with another carrier is a disadvantage. Either way, it happens every day. A couple companies ago, the CIO wanted a brand new iPhone the day it was released. AT&T told him they couldn't do that, so he made the decision to move the cellular business to Verizon. Verizon was 10% more expensive, but he didn't care. Took 4 months, but 90% of the phones were switched to Verizon and they make sure to get him his new iPhone on launch day. He's still the CIO to this day.

Indeed, it's much cheaper and perfectly within AA's rights. Participation in the program allows AA to take unilateral action (pro or against consumer interest) but when it comes to the mailer churner game, to the best of my limited knowledge, none of the folks who have experienced the shutdowns have pursued any action other than to complain on Reddit/FT.

All bark and no bite? How boring.

You've switched the facts as often happens in analogies which don;t work.

The poster said that the friend had made her decision based on being caught out in the scam. E.g., she made a spiteful business decision which is not linked to a valid business concern unless she is senior at a business which churns CC's.

[QUOTE=DVDBob;31923865]She's not a robot, she's a human with human emotions. Decisions are made all the time, at company level, with human emotions factored in. See below.

Exactly.
Who's to say that going with another carrier is a disadvantage. Either way, it happens every day. A couple companies ago, the CIO wanted a brand new iPhone the day it was released. AT&T told him they couldn't do that, so he made the decision to move the cellular business to Verizon. Verizon was 10% more expensive, but he didn't care. Took 4 months, but 90% of the phones were switched to Verizon and they make sure to get him his new iPhone on launch day. He's still the CIO to this day.[/QUOTE}

Is this suppose to be an example of model behavior? Getting away with doing something doesn't make it proper behavior.

1) The shutdowns began barely 3 weeks ago. I assure you there will be a vigorous regulatory and legal response at a time and place of our choosing.

2) We have information from a leaker in AA that Citibank is behind this and that will open far more opportunities for legal challenges and discovery. And for the AA people reading this: "padlocks."

3) It became clear yesterday that AA CorpSec infiltrated the private Reddit forum, took adverse action on what they found, and are posing as members of a potential class to extract information for their purposes.

Edit:
Let me add a fourth--MANY of us received a solicitation from AA to purchase more miles--a solicitation sent to individuals that CorpSec has no intention of ever allowing to use them.