Happy

it better be. This one even the most egregious AA loyalist cannot defend it. DOT would issue a fine if it is not reinstated.

BaconSF

I know someone on this thread who would defend it 😂

VegasGambler

AA would never pay the fine. They have amazing lawyers, which allows them to do whatever they want with no regard for the law.

Often1

There are plenty of employers across entire sectors who would take a really dim view.

sdsearch

But what's the big difference between innocently clicking links they saw at AA or Citi, versus innocently using a mailer directly addressed to them? (Or to be more specific, innocently clicked one link at AA or Citi, got one bonus, then got two mailers directly addressed to them, applied for both, and got a bonus on both. And thus actually a "mix" of these two "innocent" behaviors.)

Because there is at least one (if not more?) datapoints of this "mix".

joe_miami

�At least one,� after two months and countless thousands of comments here, Reddit, etc., sounds like it was a mistake by AA, not evidence of AA swinging the ax indiscriminately.

sdsearch

As previously noted:

1. It happened because AA "assumed" that anyone who had 3+ sign-up bonuses in 2 years for the very same Citi card had to be using mailers, and because AA "assumed" that at least one of those mailers had to be "abused" (name changed, fake account signup, etc).

2. AA made the mistake because it's very rare (but certainly possible in certain timing situations) for someone to get mailers directly addressed to them shortly after doing a public app for the very same card. That's happened to me twice (at other banks with other airline's card), I applied for a pubic link (or a previous invitation) and then I recieved another invitation to apply in the mail shortly afterwards. (Once with BofA for an Alaska card, once with Amex for a Delta card.) That's because banks typically "schedule" mailers months ahead of when you actually receive them, so if you happen to apply in the meantime, you can get a mailer after applying and being approved. AA presumably didn't consider this is a possibility (given how rare it is) and just "assumed" that if someone used mailers to get to 3 SUBs in 2 years for the same card, they must have "misused" mailers somehow.

3. AA "amplified" its mistake by refusing to explain to people why they were terminating them, and thus making it very difficult to "plead your case" in case AA had terminated you despite you not meeting their criteria for terminating you.

LWT3

I haven't spent a lot of time in this thread, so I'm not sure if my information would have any value as a data point (I suspect not), but I'll post the basics, and if anyone wants more information, either reply or PM me. I could copy and paste the content if that would be helpful, but I assume that has been done by others more than once.

Accounts locked in early to mid-December, so either the first or second wave. Shutdown e-mails just arrived now, stating the obvious -- banned from program, miles forfeited, itineraries cancelled. No surprise at all. Also, not terribly concerned about the lost miles. We had a very large balance because work schedules made it difficult to burn (travel) as fast as Citi allowed us to earn, but even so, I counted 18 free round trip flights in just the past two years alone, including seven international flights. (Several of these were tickets "bought" for family members using miles, rather than flights we took ourselves).

The only thing mildly surprising to me is that the e-mail is signed by a specific individual. It would be better for the AA employees who are terminating accounts to just say this is coming from Corporate Security or whatever department. No need to put the analyst's real name out there..

One reason I haven't spent much time here is because I believed early on this result was inevitable, and I thought those who were holding out hope were being unrealistic. For people who dabbled in mailers occasionally, that might have been reasonable, but for those who were getting two cards every 65 days, there was just no way the result could be different. As I've said before, when AA asks Citi why they approved over two dozen of the same card for some people, I'd love to see the answer.

I'm a little surprised by the extended discussion on legal action. That seems very unrealistic to me as well.

MaxVO

Corporate departments interfacing with the public often use a single fake name that goes on all correspondence.

OssianBlue

No longer relevant.

JonNYC

Not only are the names all 100% fake (years ago they weren't) but they are rotated quite often and the gender in a few cases reversed. A few are oblique literary references, etc.

Kudos for your sanguine maturity on the matter @LWT3!

radonc1

If one does a quick and dirty count of the amount of money AA lost on free tickets alone, it is easily within tens of thousands of dollars (if not more). If some (or all) of the flights were in J or F, the sums are even more revealing.

It does not surprise me that AA (once they figured it out) wanted to axe as many of the players as possible. With the losses that they incurred, I imagine that they will be more than willing to contest any legal questions that may arise from this.

One quick question I had from the post. Is the member actually banned from the AA program, or do they just have to start from ground zero with a new accounnt?

joe_miami

Totally banned.

flyer4512

It's funny that you think that. AA can't even terminate all the accounts that have been locked for months, there is nothing stopping a person with a locked/terminated AA account from creating another AA account, using an emailer, getting the miles and burning them.

sbrower

You are lacking reliance and, more importantly, intent. The advertising is not actionable until you do something in reliance (i.e. - you sign up for another card and lose some money in the process). And you would also need to show intent (i.e. - when the decision to send the mailer to "you" was made (which was some time before the date of mailing), they already knew that they were not interested in dealing with "you".)