tom911

So you think AA should overlook the applications that were not targeted at you and recognize your 18 years of loyalty as an overriding factor? Are you going to communicate that to AA in some form (overnight letter, e-mail)?

sexykitten7

Anyone can sue for anything. Do you really want to take that chance? (FWIW I would, but I'm very litigious.) Even if the suit is dismissed, you won't be able to recover your defense costs. All it takes is one cognizable claim for suit to be deemed non-frivolous. There is a huge legal difference between no redemptions and little redemptions. With that being said, I'd say the odds of a countersuit are pretty slim.
As has been said ad nauseam (latin FTW), they're unlikely to reach the merits in real court. Even if they do, a plausible defense is "We had to take drastic action because of other bad actors. It was strictly a business decision. You would've done the same." AA won't have to prove you're dirty, they just have to say 95% of dragnet people were dirty. You can call it the one bad apple theory. haha. So I don't think clean people are necessarily better off than dirty, despite the unique fact pattern.

To be frank, as a churner myself I do think AA should pay for their actions. But I don't see a viable strategy to make that happen!!!

filipm

Not 100% sure but I figured it out early January, then started searching forums,etc. to confirm.

Clawing back the 440k from the only SUBs I got out of the balance would have obviously been my preferred course of action but given their stance on misuse/fraud, I understand their response. It would be much more a case by case basis depending on outstanding balance, etc. that would require judgement. Once I found out I was locked, didn't see that happening.

At the time, and before reading/hearing more about it, I honestly, naively thought that it wouldn't come to this scorched earth scenario. Differentiating the origination of the SUBs seems not to matter, it's purely frequency. And after reading through many of the comments here, Citi could have easily locked down a few fields tied to the codes or to the AA number and prevented it from happening in the first place. Loyalty aside, I haven't thought about sending any communication out as I don't think it would have any impact at this point. Parameters have been set and they've acted on them. Will I keep flying AA?? If I have to but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and it's not like the gold perks made a huge difference anymore.

GUWonder

Maybe AA should go look closely at the accounts of all of its Million+ Mile customers and consider shutting them down for singing up for and getting card SUBs back in the day when Citi SUBs counted toward MM status. I am not saying this just because I am one of those MM who had no Citi SUBs credited to my
AA account; I am saying it because maybe AA could interpret the signing up for those cards and getting all
those SUBs to be against the spirit of the AA program rules and what AA now has in mind for the MM aspect of the program. I can foresee that kind oF AA action unleashing even more of a storm here if AA were to go down that road.

wiivile

I think we shouldn't assume AA has the necessary data of where signup bonuses came from (i.e., to whom a mailer was addressed, which code was used, etc) because this data would need to come from Citi. My understanding is that Citi has limited involvement in this, and even if they were involved, Citi may not have records of which codes were used to open which cards. If challenged in court, AA may not be able to show proof of 'fraud' or 'abuse' - though a judge could rule that they don't need to show proof since it's their program and the discretion is theirs to determine what constitutes abuse. But the fact that AA is shutting down low-level churners (3-4 bonuses, and may not have used any mailers, or just their own mailers) along with high-level churners (mailers in the name of pets, or purchased mailers) may indicate that they don't actually have data re mailers and codes.

Even if the discretion is solely AA's to determine what constitutes abuse: Citi sent me mailers at least quarterly for the card, even when they knew or should have known that I already had the card. If I took advantage of every one of these solicitations addressed to me, it's hard to call it 'abuse' with a straight face. Why would they have repeatedly solicited me for the card if I would be terminated, and all my miles confiscated, for actually applying? And why would they have approved me?

Regarding the DOT, after speaking with someone at the DOT's OAEP (Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings), they do not have any particular regulations regarding frequent flyer programs. However, they are empowered under 49 U.S.C. § 41712 to seek enforcement against "unfair and deceptive trade practices". In my complaint, I plan to cite this statute and implore the DOT to investigate AA for violation of federal law. AA allowed Citi to issue miles to AAdvantage members in accordance with Citi's own lending rules. Citi and/or AA repeatedly solicited AAdvantage members with credit card offers, even those who already had or had had the card. By terminating members who responded to offers when repeatedly solicited, they engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, especially considering they will end up profiting following the confiscation of miles.

Regarding the CFPB, I plan to simply request that Citi confirm that all credit card accounts were duly approved by them, and then use that confirmation as evidence in any case where AA claims that the accounts fraudulently or abusively opened.

Contrary to popular belief, Northwest v Ginsberg could actually help churners here because Alito (1) suggested that miles earned through methods other than flying may not be subject to the ADA if challenged in a future case and (2) specifically confirms that 49 U.S.C. § 41712 empowers the DOT to seek enforcement against airlines over their frequent flyer programs.

Now that we've invoked both the executive and judicial branch, don't forget that you can also get the legislative branch involved. One of the primary roles of your congressional representative or senator is to provide assistance with a federal agency. If the DOT does not appear to be inclined to seek enforcement against AA, you can go to your congressional representative or senator and ask that they issue a formal request to the DOT to investigate something.

If you want my personal opinion, AA may have bit off a bit more than it can chew here. That doesn't mean they'll ultimately have to give everyone's miles back, but they are likely going to be hearing about this for years from all three (3) branches of the U.S. government.

OssianBlue

No longer relevant.

VegasGambler

Yup.

Smart, and a good point. I wonder how the DOT will react to AA giving them an official response that the CC accounts were opened fraudulently when Citi claims otherwise. The DOT may not particularly want to get involved but no government agency likes to get lied to. There are egos at stake here.

Yes, exactly, this.

Interesting idea...

One problem is that the shutdowns are scattered across the country -- it's not like one senator or congressperson will get hundreds of letters. They will be spread out between all of them and likely they will be ignored. Still, it's worth doing -- writing a letter has minimal cost.

Which committee would be responsible for this enforcement? It may be worthwhile to send letters to the chair(s) of the responsible committee(s) as well as the representatives of your constituency. Hundreds of letters sent to the same person who has some actual power here might be useful? It still seems unlikely, but, again, the cost of sending a letter is low.

LOL, not only do I agree but I used the exact same place a few posts back.

wiivile

First, these "requests for assistance with a federal agency" are treated seriously - they are not ignored. You fill out a form, you are given a case number, and you work with a member of staff. It's not like sending a letter to a Congressman about how you want them to vote on a particular issue where you can say whatever you want but it won't likely affect anything.

Second, the sheer geographical scatter of these requests should actually help us, considering that the number of people affected likely represents a significant number of districts. The more Congressmen/Senators involved, the better.

VegasGambler

Interesting; I've never done this. Is filling out the form an online thing, or do you have to send a letter? Is there a link to get people started?

Please let us know how this goes.

mhopki3

My wife and I have been locked since early December (8ish SUBs each in the past 2 years). We had international award tickets on mixed metal that we just returned from. My wife's account got terminated about a week before the award flights, luckily I had backup revenue flights booked. My account is still alive, for the moment, and I was able to travel on all my award tickets while my wife traveled on the revenue tickets. I was even able to make a change to the return award booking while the account was locked. The change ticketed within a day and kept the same record locator.

I also tried to call various AA call centers in other countries to book an award on my account for my wife (replacing the award tickets on her account that were canceled). After finding availability with the rep and giving my AAdvantage number, the most often response I got was "did you receive an email from AA . . . you should receive an email from AA soon asking for additional information, until then I cannot process this request." The rep would then put the award on hold for 24 hours telling me to call back once the email came in. No email came, and I assume my next AA email will be termination, so I never called back in to retry the held award.

Back in December I purchased mileage multiplier on all the awards back when people thought a revenue component could save the ticket. I recently submitted the credit card disputes for the mileage multiplier charges on my wife's canceled award tickets. I also need to submit a refund for the taxes/fees on my wife's award bookings. Does anyone know where I can find the ticket number for those? All I have are the record locators.

Global321

Y'all thinking that congress or DOT is going to get involved in this are crazy.

AA will state "their" truth... "99.99%+ of AAdvantage account holders are not involved in this." By the numbers this is true.

As for those that were terminated... "We got rid of a (relatively speaking) few bad apples who abused the system with stolen mailers, fake accounts, etc. (insert any/all AA accusations). They took seats away from your hard-working honest constituents for their own personal gain. And while we cannot comment on any account individually due to pending litigation and privacy concerns, we assure you we looked into each account specifically and found some measure of abuse. Here are some prime examples." They will then cite the Fido accounts, the multiple accounts and anything else that shows how terrible terminated folks are. (Not saying they are, just how AA will play it.) AA will follow up with the program rules that allow them to decide the fate of program participants and that will be that. No one in congress is going near this; other than to pass you to DOT or somewhere else. There is no discrimination here. At best this is a contract dispute. And even that is questionable as the program specifically says it is not.

Maybe you will find a small claims court judge that will go along with the argument. Maybe not. But small claims victories (or losses) are not precedents for other cases.

Often1

There is a fantasy on FT that churning is "normal". The chances that DOT or Congress become involved beyond the inquiry stage is immeasurably small once they figure out what this is all about. E.g., no widows and orphans stranded by the big bad air carrier.

I also don't think that an off-hand comment by one Justice is going to change the fact that this is covered by the ADA, it is federally preempted and that the sole remedy here is to ask DOT to bring an enforcement action.

A much greater chance that Congress -- or at least a few key members -- reacts by "asking" card issuers to take stringent measures to end churning practices. This may well end as one of those "be careful what you wish for" things.

wiivile

That “off hand comment by one Justice” is in the official opinion of a unanimous Supreme Court. It has nearly the force of law.

Global321

You mean the one that specifically states FF programs ARE covered under ADA? Or where the Supreme Court specifically states you CAN sue to make an airline follow the terms of the program, BUT you CANNOT sue to make the program operate in good faith?

Here is a great summary in plain English...

Northwest Airlines kicked the plaintiff Ginsberg out of its frequent-flyer program, claiming that he had “abused” the program. The contract says that Northwest can kick out anybody if Northwest, in its own discretion, decides that they have abused the program. Ginsberg filed suit, claiming Northwest was lying, and that the company in fact kicked him out to save money. The Supreme Court held that the federal rules which deregulated the airline industry prevent him from bringing that lawsuit. They say that, although Ginsberg can sue to make Northwest follow the terms of the program, because this suit seeks something more – to make it operate the program in good faith – he can’t bring this suit.

"Ginsberg filed suit, claiming Northwest was lying"
"if Northwest, in its own discretion, decides that they have abused the program" - sound familiar?

Rereading this, I am not sure if you could even get to a small claims court hearing without a summary judgment to boot the case.

OssianBlue

No longer relevant.