Dec 18, 2019, 12:31 pm
Last edit by: wyogold
Related discussions in other Flyertalk forums:
AA potentially closing accounts due to credit card churning/churn
How to know if you're locked: (as of 12/22/2019)
- Call in to aadvantage reservations (800-882-8880) If you locked, you'll be forwarded to customer service instead of getting to the automated reservations system
- If you want to stay on the line, ask CSR if your account is locked (you tried to make a reservation but it wouldn't let you). CSR will inform you there's a note on your account and that corporate security will contact you
- Try to make a reservation for a super cheap hotel through useaamiles.com. There are 1000 miles / night hotels in New Delhi, so at worst you'll risk 1K miles. If you're locked, you'll see "Unable to process points. Please call our customer service for assistance."
So far, nobody seems to have gotten unlocked and gotten access to their miles back. Accounts with upcoming travel seem to be the ones that are getting terminated at the highest rate.
AA potentially closing accounts due to credit card churning/churn
How to know if you're locked: (as of 12/22/2019)
- Call in to aadvantage reservations (800-882-8880) If you locked, you'll be forwarded to customer service instead of getting to the automated reservations system
- If you want to stay on the line, ask CSR if your account is locked (you tried to make a reservation but it wouldn't let you). CSR will inform you there's a note on your account and that corporate security will contact you
- Try to make a reservation for a super cheap hotel through useaamiles.com. There are 1000 miles / night hotels in New Delhi, so at worst you'll risk 1K miles. If you're locked, you'll see "Unable to process points. Please call our customer service for assistance."
So far, nobody seems to have gotten unlocked and gotten access to their miles back. Accounts with upcoming travel seem to be the ones that are getting terminated at the highest rate.
AA accounts restricted (Nov/Dec 2019)
Jul 4, 2020, 11:26 am
#3331
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: home = LAX
Posts: 25,933
Jul 4, 2020, 12:26 pm
#3332
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,632
Of course the accounts still remain internally---when I try to log in it declines my password and lets me go through the process of answering my previously setup questions to change the password (but fails at the end).
Jul 5, 2020, 2:39 pm
#3333
Join Date: May 2011
Programs: Spg Gold, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 1,578
HAD
You may be thinking of "frozen". By now all the frozen accounts have been closed down, I believe. I've not heard of any that were unfrozen or remain frozen but not yet closed down.
Of course the accounts still remain internally---when I try to log in it declines my password and lets me go through the process of answering my previously setup questions to change the password (but fails at the end).
Of course the accounts still remain internally---when I try to log in it declines my password and lets me go through the process of answering my previously setup questions to change the password (but fails at the end).
Jul 5, 2020, 8:21 pm
#3334
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: home = LAX
Posts: 25,933
Jul 6, 2020, 1:53 am
#3336
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Jul 6, 2020, 2:45 pm
#3337
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC (LGA, JFK), CT
Programs: Delta Platinum, American Gold, JetBlue Mosaic 4, Marriott Platinum, Hyatt Explorist, Hilton Diamond,
Posts: 4,895
Surprised this hasn’t posted in this thread:
https://paxex.aero/2020/07/american-...age-behaviors/
Here is the PDF of AA’s response to one individual, with screenshots of Flyertalk threads to boot:
https://downloads.regulations.gov/DO...tachment_1.pdf
https://paxex.aero/2020/07/american-...age-behaviors/
Here is the PDF of AA’s response to one individual, with screenshots of Flyertalk threads to boot:
https://downloads.regulations.gov/DO...tachment_1.pdf
Last edited by Adelphos; Jul 6, 2020 at 3:01 pm Reason: Delete a PDF with an e-mail attached
Jul 6, 2020, 3:04 pm
#3338
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,632
Well, both the document and the article are dated today.
Interesting though. What does one have to do to get AA to respond in such detail to DoT? I thought DoT was not pursuing individual cases.
I want to make AA respond to my case with something more than the vague boilerplate response I got. What have I got to lose?
Interesting though. What does one have to do to get AA to respond in such detail to DoT? I thought DoT was not pursuing individual cases.
I want to make AA respond to my case with something more than the vague boilerplate response I got. What have I got to lose?
Last edited by SeeBuyFly; Jul 6, 2020 at 3:25 pm
Jul 6, 2020, 3:40 pm
#3339
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Surprised this hasn’t posted in this thread:
https://paxex.aero/2020/07/american-...age-behaviors/
Here is the PDF of AA’s response to one individual, with screenshots of Flyertalk threads to boot:
https://downloads.regulations.gov/DO...tachment_1.pdf
https://paxex.aero/2020/07/american-...age-behaviors/
Here is the PDF of AA’s response to one individual, with screenshots of Flyertalk threads to boot:
https://downloads.regulations.gov/DO...tachment_1.pdf
No holds barred in this response. Clearly, AA did this to get the facts out there and also demonstrate its capacity to track what many thought it could not.
Jul 6, 2020, 4:09 pm
#3340
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,477
I noticed that AA arguments had quite a few holes in them, just in case someone might have enough idle time this year to challenge.
1. AA provided copious documentation for Citi's current SUB limits, while the bonuses in question may've been earned under previous rules.
2. AA conveniently forgets to mention that the one in 48 months limit is per Citi's product like, of which they have four.
3. AA submitted a few random comments from unrelated FT members as "proof" that the complaint on the table is fraudulent. I'm not even sure what would be an appropriate adjective for the quality of this argument.
1. AA provided copious documentation for Citi's current SUB limits, while the bonuses in question may've been earned under previous rules.
2. AA conveniently forgets to mention that the one in 48 months limit is per Citi's product like, of which they have four.
3. AA submitted a few random comments from unrelated FT members as "proof" that the complaint on the table is fraudulent. I'm not even sure what would be an appropriate adjective for the quality of this argument.
Last edited by MaxVO; Jul 6, 2020 at 4:16 pm
Jul 6, 2020, 4:26 pm
#3341
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,632
I noticed that AA arguments had quite a few holes in them, just in case someone might have enough idle time this year to challenge.
1. AA provided copious documentation for Citi's current SUB limits, while the bonuses in question may've been earned under previous rules.
2. AA conveniently forgets to mention that the one in 48 months limit is per Citi's product like, of which they have four.
3. AA submitted a few random comments from unrelated FT members as "proof" that the complaint on the table is fraudulent. I'm not even sure what would be an appropriate adjective for the quality of this argument.
1. AA provided copious documentation for Citi's current SUB limits, while the bonuses in question may've been earned under previous rules.
2. AA conveniently forgets to mention that the one in 48 months limit is per Citi's product like, of which they have four.
3. AA submitted a few random comments from unrelated FT members as "proof" that the complaint on the table is fraudulent. I'm not even sure what would be an appropriate adjective for the quality of this argument.
Last edited by SeeBuyFly; Jul 6, 2020 at 4:36 pm
Jul 6, 2020, 5:18 pm
#3342
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, AS 75k, AA Plat, Bonvoyed Gold, Honors Dia, Hyatt Explorer, IHG Plat, ...
Posts: 16,854
Most interesting is AA's request that DOT require the complainant to verify her Complaint as required by DOT rules. E.g., verify the truthfulness of every fact she states and be willing to suffer the maximum 5-year term of imprisonment for violating 18 USC Section 1001 if she has made materially false statements.
No holds barred in this response. Clearly, AA did this to get the facts out there and also demonstrate its capacity to track what many thought it could not.
No holds barred in this response. Clearly, AA did this to get the facts out there and also demonstrate its capacity to track what many thought it could not.
I wonder if mother/MiL was actually aware of the complaint filed in her name...
Jul 6, 2020, 5:30 pm
#3343
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Global
Posts: 5,998
Most interesting is AA's request that DOT require the complainant to verify her Complaint as required by DOT rules. E.g., verify the truthfulness of every fact she states and be willing to suffer the maximum 5-year term of imprisonment for violating 18 USC Section 1001 if she has made materially false statements.
No holds barred in this response. Clearly, AA did this to get the facts out there and also demonstrate its capacity to track what many thought it could not.
No holds barred in this response. Clearly, AA did this to get the facts out there and also demonstrate its capacity to track what many thought it could not.
I noticed that AA arguments had quite a few holes in them, just in case someone might have enough idle time this year to challenge.
1. AA provided copious documentation for Citi's current SUB limits, while the bonuses in question may've been earned under previous rules.
2. AA conveniently forgets to mention that the one in 48 months limit is per Citi's product like, of which they have four.
3. AA submitted a few random comments from unrelated FT members as "proof" that the complaint on the table is fraudulent. I'm not even sure what would be an appropriate adjective for the quality of this argument.
1. AA provided copious documentation for Citi's current SUB limits, while the bonuses in question may've been earned under previous rules.
2. AA conveniently forgets to mention that the one in 48 months limit is per Citi's product like, of which they have four.
3. AA submitted a few random comments from unrelated FT members as "proof" that the complaint on the table is fraudulent. I'm not even sure what would be an appropriate adjective for the quality of this argument.
2. Maybe/maybe not. But AA does not have to provide anything that does not help their case.
3. I agree the FT comments are irrelevant in terms of 'proof'
However, unless AA is lying...
...between the Complainant, her son-in-law and daughter, 45 Citi Card accounts were opened over a four-year period, entailing more than 1.4 million miles in New Account Mileage Bonuses.
....The 45 Citi Card accounts do not include an additional nine Citi Card accounts associated with the Complainant’s street address but established under names different than the Complainant, her son-in-law or daughter.
...a further 16 AAdvantage accounts were established by the three of them.
...The 16 AAdvantage accounts do not include five additional AAdvantage accounts associated with the Complainant’s street address but established under names different than the Complainant, her son-in-law or daughter. Of those five additional AAdvantage accounts, two have been terminated due to fraudulent accrual of New Account Mileage Bonuses.
16 AA accounts alone is pretty clear in my mind that there was an attempt to defraud AA.
45 Citi Card accounts - the same account type - also pretty clear to a layperson there was shadiness going on.
The 5 additional AA accounts with 9 Citicards that are not in their names are suspicious, to say the least.
Miss Borges and family may want to tread lightly. The miles are gone. Don't be the people AA goes after for submitting materially false statements to DOT. You may find yourself on the wrong side of an AA lawsuit.
Jul 6, 2020, 6:07 pm
#3344
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Well, both the document and the article are dated today.
Interesting though. What does one have to do to get AA to respond in such detail to DoT? I thought DoT was not pursuing individual cases.
I want to make AA respond to my case with something more than the vague boilerplate response I got. What have I got to lose?
Interesting though. What does one have to do to get AA to respond in such detail to DoT? I thought DoT was not pursuing individual cases.
I want to make AA respond to my case with something more than the vague boilerplate response I got. What have I got to lose?
Jul 6, 2020, 6:11 pm
#3345
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
This is alluded to in the filing, with mention of every 2 years and 4 years in different areas.