they can do whatever the heck they want with their program. Well, from a practical point, mdtony is close, but not right on:

Airlines can make arbitrary changes in the rules, but they have to consider the effects of the changes on the loyalty of their passenger base and the possibility, remote but real, that they may have a lawsuit.

If a court determines that the contract terms are contrary to public policy, they can, and have, adjusted terms - like requiring a six month redemption period.

And, if we are to judge by comments on these FT fora, FTers change FF programmes on an average of about five times a year.

My guess is that the possibility of loss of passengers is a much greater factor in airline decisions about changing FF rules than concern about potential law suits, and that any changes are only made after careful consideration of what other airlines are doing, and might do.

Bruce

It's strangely comforting to know that this sort of lilly-livered whingeing is not exclusively the domain of Australians.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, YOU freely chose to join the AA programme, and YOU were given adequate notice of the terms and conditions of that programme - including AA's right to alter or cancel at any time.

So what, precisely, is the nature of your complaint?

I've really had a gutfull of this sort of girly crying about everything that doesn't turn out exactly as expected. In case you hadn't noticed, there's just a touch of the "dynamic" when it comes to the nature of the world we live in.

Strongly but effectively put, shillard! Although our female members might justifiably take offense at the phrase "girly crying". The men here seem to whine a lot more than the women!

------------------
Vasant

[Edited to add clarification]

[This message has been edited by vasantn (edited 12-30-2002).]

Dear g-d I actually agree with you... NOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooo! Also, in case you haven't noticed, the US in particular seems to be moving towards the idea that we need to be 'protected' from everything. Life happens, and some things there's just no protection from. In the grand scheme of things, this one's really really REALLY minor.

[This message has been edited by kanebear (edited 12-30-2002).]

Could someone please post the site that details the new award mileage requirements? Thank you in advance.

Bidkat, your gift card analogy is a bad one. A $20 gift card was paid for with 20 US dollars. It was not handed out free from the department store.

AA miles, on the other hand, are given out for free when you buy an AA airline ticket. It is possible to buy miles with dollars, but that would only make sense if you are one day away from getting an award, so future changes are not an issue.

A better analogy would be coupons. Coupons, like AA miles, are given away for free.

Does California law prohibit coupons from ever expiring? If not, does California law prohibit price increases on an item that has an unexpired coupon in circulation?

Bidkat, the answer to your question is complicated.

Contractually, the fine print entitles them to do this. However, there may be provisions of consumer protection law that override this result. Also, that interpretation of the contract assumes that those provisions are part of the contract. A court might ignore them if they are unconscionable (vastly unfair) of if a pax did not agree to them--not everything in the fine print is legit or is binding on you. Finally, even if they are entitled under contract and consumer protection laws, the act of changing the terms of the miles might amount to a bait and switch or other deceptive trade practice.

One caveat is that federal law preempts state law, and there may be specific legislation authorizing this as there is with the unreasonably low baggage loss limitations.

Here is an analogy that you might be interested in. Go into a store like Best Buy or Radio Shak that asks for personal information when you make a purchase. Tell them you'll give them that info for $99.95. Have them agree to this on tape. Then walk out of the store with your purchase less than $99.95 without otherwise paying and tell them to keep the change. Arguably you paid for the goods by providing your personal info. If that doesn't hold up, then neither should the fine print in the airlines' contracts.

But first you have to find a store that would actually pay $99.95 for one person's information. Good luck.

Your entire argument goes right out the window because it says in the terms and conditions that if you participate in the program, you are agreeing to all the terms and conditions of the program. End of discussion.

You've got a contract. Both parties agreed to it. One of the provisions of the contract is that the airline can change any of the conditions of the program at any time, and they can kill the program entirely without any notice. What possible legal grounds could you have for a lawsuit? Granted, there are some idiotic lawsuits out there, such as jokers claiming that they're entitled to damages because they didn't know smoking was bad for them even though it's only been on every pack of cigarettes for 40 years, but I wouldn't stake anything on getting an idiotic jury that would agree with you.

mdtony,

you are probably right in most cases. However, not every piece of fine print is binding because most people don't read it and a lot of it is unconscionable (extremely unfair). Its the law in most places that a court does not have to honor the fine print in either case. Its particularly likely to be the case with an air carrier that is supposed to serve the public and which via licensing and gate assignments has a quasi-monoply, or where bargaining power is not equal and the contract is a take it or leave it basis.

I mostly agree with you but its not an absolute thing.

I had an argument with our dear, DEAR friends at MCI last year. I was looking through my statements (which I did only a few times each year) and discovered that they had increased my per-minute rate for domestic calls from .07/min to .10/min. There was nothing in the statements preceeding the one in question that indicated my rate would be going up, only a note on the statement in which the rate increased (in tiny print, of course, buried where it wasn't easily spotted).

I called to complain and they said they had the right to raise rates at any time without notification, and that they did "notify" me, even if it was after the fact. I objected (loudly) and said I had a right to know what I was being charged for a call, before I made it. They said they didn't owe that to me, under the conditions of my contract with them. But, I explained, what is to stop you from arbitrarily raising your rates to $10/min without informing me. They said "oh, we would never raise your rates that high."

What's to stop AA from increasing the price of a domestic coach ticket from 25,000 to 100,000 miles? Their justification would be the same: They have the right to modify the program, even if it's after you've earned whatever miles are in your account.

Ultimately, they wouldn't make such a move because it would be bad PR. We would all pack our bags and take our business elsewhere immediately. But what, or rather how many miles, defines the line between bad PR and squeezing loyal customers just a little more? At what point do we do more than whine?

That's why I feel absolutely no remorse in selling travel awards. If I don't get something for it they will probably just take it away from me anyway...

They make it binding by saying that if you use their program -- whether it's a credit card, mileage program, or computer software -- you are explicitly agreeing to the terms and conditions that are in the fine print.

And saying, well, I didn't read the fine print ain't gonna get you very far in a court of law. Of course, the fine print can't violate the law. But as long as it is legal, they can enforce it and you have zero recourse.

That is why it is so important to read the fine print!

mdtony, I'm not sure why you believe that the wording of contracts is legally binding in all cases. It is certainly not, for many reasons. For instance, terms that violate laws are not binding.

A contract written by one party and implicitly agreed to is called a "contract of adhesion." Courts are not reluctant to overturn any terms in such contracts that they deem unreasonable.

QL

AA did lose a class action suit on this issue many years ago. What is the legal distinction between that situation and this one.