I don't think that we are debating all of the terms of these contracts, only the one that states "we can unilaterally change this program to our advantage at any time."

I'd love to see what would happen if auto companies put that line in their warranties, and then "revised" the terms at a later date. They would be crushed by the ensuing legal mob.

Starting to head off topic, I've seen a number of (non-travel) products that are including a clause stating that it "may not be resold" after you buy it. This flies in the face of most property rights and perhaps one day it, like the ban on sale of travel awards, will be gunned down.

If you want to call these agreements "contracts" between parties, then both parties should be bound to honor the terms in effect at the time of contract. If that means that 2002 miles have a higher value than 2003 miles, then so be it. But changing the value after the fact (like lowering the $20 gift certificate to $15) is a slimy tactic.

Bidkat-

Worldcom and Enron broke existing rules. The same would be true if car makers changed warranties after the sale.

On the other hand, AA did not break existing rules.

Think about it. Breaking rules, not breaking rules.

Big difference.

What part of "can't violate the law" wasn't clear enough? I will try harder to make it crystal clear in the future.

lets fight fire with fire. Lets send revised terms to the airlines with our payment that states "acceptance of this payment constitutes Airline's acceptance of these terms." The new terms could be something like 10,000 miles for an F award.

and also replying to your earlier:

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!

No, that is why it is so important to know what is legal and enforceable and what is not!

The point several have been trying to make is that whether it is written in fine print or bold letters, for a lot of reasons, much of what is written in FF programmes is NOT legal and NOT enforceable.

What is useful is to discuss just what parts are reasonably enforceable, and what parts may reasonably be challenged. We can make a best guess, but most of the time we won't know with certainty until there has been a challenge and a court ruling. The wording in question that the FF programmes can change any of the rules and conditions at any time has been challenged and held unenforeable in the past by courts.

What airlines, and lots of others who include similar wording in contracts, hope for is that those reading such wording will believe that it is binding and effective, and even if they don't agree, will find the cost and hassle of challenge too great.

Bruce

I know we all feel good about saying that we will sue if the airlines don't give us what we want, but I agree with the side of this issue that says AA isn't doing anything wrong. People - you are getting something for nothing! You agreed to pay $400 for your ticket from LAX-LGA or LAX-LHR-SIN-LGA for $200. The fact that we get anything else is a bonus. I didn't see this much venom when some airlines discounted miles for deeply discounted fares. (or maybe I was watching football) They give six months notice; plan your travel. I'm planning a trip during the summer for my family to the EU. If UA said that the intl awards were going up, I would book that trip very VERY quickly. If I couldn't get a single seat in the next six months, that would be another story. If AA said that they would discontinue the program completely and all points were null, then there could be some legal ramifications regardless of what they put in the T&C's. Yes, there is unenforceable clauses, but that's a topic for a Saturday seminar.

Wake up people, we are in a different world now. DO we really want to go back to a regulated (gasp!!) airline travel environment? As soon as you say "the government should step in" that what it's getting to. I don't think so. I'd like to still be able to get a free domestic 25K mile ticket for one trip to Asia, but it look like that won't happen.

Are you an attorney? Where did you get your law degree? What state bar do you belong to?

I just checked with someone who is one, and he just laughed when I told him that folks thought they could sue AMR if they changed the requirements for awards. As for the class action lawsuit, AMR settled it to avoid litigation. The lawyer who filed it got a ton of money, and the folks who were part of the class probably got 1,000 miles or something like that.

If you really think that you can sue AMR when they do something that is clearly within their power to do -- and which DOES NOT violate any laws -- then I want some of what you are smoking.

If you believe that AMR's terms and conditions violate the law, please cite specific laws that it violates.

Yes it does say that AA can change the rules at anytime. However, it seems these changes should affect the FUTURE, not the past.

We all earned the miles knowing and expecting that 25,000 miles = one coach award for example. I could say that I would not have flown or charged on my CC if that number would have been 50,000, for example.

By these changes they have taken something of value away from us, and somehow it seems like we are entiteled to compesnation for our PAST miles.

What Changes? Or rather more specially is the 25000 mile coach award going to change?

They should not give you one thing and then change it after you've earned it -- as it applies to previously earned miles under an indicated scheme. Period.

They told you you earned an award ticket for x miles, and they should honor that reward.

They have every right to change the program and redemption schedule going forward for new miles.

The airlines themselves have acknowledged this by historically grandfathering old miles.

I doubt this would stand up to a class action, for the reasons cited above. While I am not recommending one, this is the purpose of class action law: to protect the little guy from the big guy.

[This message has been edited by nologic (edited 01-04-2003).]

I don't agree, I think you bought your ticket plus "x" miles for $200 or $400.

I beleive you paid for the miles and paid for the award schedule indicated at the time...IMO, to change the award schedule for earned miles is taking money/value out of your pocket after you've earned it.

Ooops, duplicate post.

[This message has been edited by nologic (edited 01-04-2003).]

May 2003 is in the future, not the past.

If you want to claim awards under the old structure, claim your awards now.

These awards expire w/i 1 year vs. miles which do not...it's not the same.

Yes, I meant to claim an award and actually use it. To expect AA to retain an old pricing structure forever is unreasonable.