Oct 1, 2013, 3:03 pm
Last edit by: Ari
PLEASE READ FIRST: WIKIPOST and MODERATOR NOTE
MODERATOR NOTE:
Please note: Insensitive or attacking posts, discussion about other posters and their motives, and other off-topic posts/comments are not allowed, per FlyerTalk Rules.
--> If you have a question or comment about moderation, use the "Alert a Moderator" button
left of every post, or send a PM. Do not post such comments/questions on-thread. Thank you.
N.B. Please do not alter the above message.
--> If you have a question or comment about moderation, use the "Alert a Moderator" button
left of every post, or send a PM. Do not post such comments/questions on-thread. Thank you. N.B. Please do not alter the above message.
• • • • •
[Please post
NLY status updates and relevant Q&A here.]Plaintiff: George Lagen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Defendant: United Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc.
Filed In The United States District Court For The Northern District Of Illinois Eastern Division
Case No. 1:12-cv-04056
Filed: 05/24/2012
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber
Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim
Proposed class: All persons, as of midnight, December 31, 2011, who were members of the Million Mile Program under United Airlines’ Mileage Plus frequent flyer program.
Filings/rulings can be found on www.pacer.gov (requires registration)
12 June 2012 - Amended Class Action Complaint filed
Spring 2013 - Court denies United's request to close case
Spring 2013 - Plaintiff files for suit to become a class action, United asks Judge before he decides if there could be limited discovery (which typically happens after case becomes class-action). Judge allows it.
August 2013 - Depositions/Limited Discovery completed and transcripts were handed over to the court.
22 October 2013 - Pursuant to an order of the Court, both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment:
Plaintiff contends that he is a United pre-merger Million Miler, that United promised Million Miler fliers certain lifetime benefits on its web site, including two regional upgrades every year and Premier Executive status, which provided certain delineated benefits (e.g., 100% mileage bonus). Plaintiff cites deposition testimony from United stating "lifetime" means: "as long as they were really able to fly … as long as someone is coming on a plane and alive and capable of flying." Plaintiff concludes by stating that United has breached its contract with its pre-merger Million Miler fliers by reducing the lifetime benefits they were promised.
United contends in its motion that Million Miler is part of the MileagePlus program, that United reserved the right to make any changes it wishes to the MileagePlus program, and that the changes it made that plaintiff now complains of are therefore contractually permissible. United does not admit, and does not address, the "lifetime" benefit statements that it made on its website.
23 January 2014 - Judge denies Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grants United's cross-motion for summary judgment. Judgment entered in favor of United.
The Judge begins his Opinion with a quote from Job: “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away” and then holds that Plaintiff has not produced any evidence that UA made him an offer to participate in a separate MM program.
The Court noted that: “The sum total of his evidence is vague references to ‘electronic and written correspondence’ from United, which, in both instances postdates his qualification as a Million Mile flyer and was not directed to him; and a 1997 Newsletter from United announcing the creation of the program he could not remember receiving. However the card he did receive from United, admitting him to MililionMile Flyer Program, shows that his new status is clearly a status within the Mileage Plus Frequent Flyer Program, as does the form letters United sent to applicants advising them of their admission to the MillionMile Flyer program. In fact, Plaintiff in his Complaint alleges that the MillionMile Flyer program was part of the Mileage Plus program. He has not produced any document that comes close to substantiating that the programs were separate and distinct."
Bottom line: The Court agreed with United's position that the Plaintiff had not proved the existence of a separate contract between itself and the Million Milers.
Full decision: http://media.wandr.me/MMerOpinion.pdf
20 February 2014
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's decision. The record on appeal is due by March 13, 2014.
Appeal docs available at:
- http://media.wandr.me/UAL-MM-Appeal-filed-2-20-14.pdf
- http://media.wandr.me/UAL-MM-letter-of-appeal.pdf
8 September 2014
Oral arguments were heard by a three judge panel. Links to the original MP3 of the Court's recording and also some transcription can be found around post 2350 and for several more following that.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/23496499-post2361.html
22 December 2014
Affirmed over a dissent.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D12-22/C:14-1375:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:1474449:S:0
Million Miler Sues United [Judgment for UA Jan 2014] Judgment Affirmed Dec 2014
Sep 7, 2013, 11:05 am
#1741
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Programs: UA 1K 3 Million/ex-many year GS, AA PLT/2 Mil, AS MVPG, HH Dia, Starwood Life Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,401
I continue to respect your carefully thought out and well expressed opinions, which help me to challenge and reflect on my own.
I can only reiterate that IMHO you accept the premise that PMUA Premier Executive "maps" or "tracks" to "Premier Gold" in the new program because... UA claims it does.
I can only reiterate that IMHO you accept the premise that PMUA Premier Executive "maps" or "tracks" to "Premier Gold" in the new program because... UA claims it does.
I don't accept the premise that PE maps to PG because UA claims it does. I could certainly accept that it could be mapped to PP or to nothing. What I do believe is that if you are to construct an argument independent of what UA says for what PE should map to you will have a harder time making the argument for other than PG. For any of the US airline programs the tiers are defined by a number of qualifying miles flown. That is the criteria that gets you a given level. Having gotten the level you then get benefits - and said benefits are known to change some over time even while the qualifying number of miles doesn't. I think it is agreed that for recent history (decade or more) PE was defined as the level associated with 50K PQMs. For me, then the simplest argument is that PE would be equivalent to whatever level 50K EQMs now maps to and that's PG. Could you construct a justification that PE maps to another level - sure. But said justification will be more complex and, I fear, much less defensible in a court. Had the new UA defined PG as 35K and PP as 65K I think it would have been a very different situation. But to me it really does look like the simplest interpretation of all this is that they simply created a new naming system for what they had. All this said I wish MMers well in getting improved benefits and if that also results in me getting my RPUs each year I certainly won't complain. I just have a hard time intellectually with the arguments put forth thus far.
Sep 7, 2013, 11:20 am
#1742
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,909
Thanks - I find the back and forth with you much more gratifying and challenging than with many who are more "emotional rant" oriented.
I don't accept the premise that PE maps to PG because UA claims it does. I could certainly accept that it could be mapped to PP or to nothing. What I do believe is that if you are to construct an argument independent of what UA says for what PE should map to you will have a harder time making the argument for other than PG. For any of the US airline programs the tiers are defined by a number of qualifying miles flown. That is the criteria that gets you a given level. Having gotten the level you then get benefits - and said benefits are known to change some over time even while the qualifying number of miles doesn't. I think it is agreed that for recent history (decade or more) PE was defined as the level associated with 50K PQMs. For me, then the simplest argument is that PE would be equivalent to whatever level 50K EQMs now maps to and that's PG. Could you construct a justification that PE maps to another level - sure. But said justification will be more complex and, I fear, much less defensible in a court. Had the new UA defined PG as 35K and PP as 65K I think it would have been a very different situation. But to me it really does look like the simplest interpretation of all this is that they simply created a new naming system for what they had. All this said I wish MMers well in getting improved benefits and if that also results in me getting my RPUs each year I certainly won't complain. I just have a hard time intellectually with the arguments put forth thus far.
I don't accept the premise that PE maps to PG because UA claims it does. I could certainly accept that it could be mapped to PP or to nothing. What I do believe is that if you are to construct an argument independent of what UA says for what PE should map to you will have a harder time making the argument for other than PG. For any of the US airline programs the tiers are defined by a number of qualifying miles flown. That is the criteria that gets you a given level. Having gotten the level you then get benefits - and said benefits are known to change some over time even while the qualifying number of miles doesn't. I think it is agreed that for recent history (decade or more) PE was defined as the level associated with 50K PQMs. For me, then the simplest argument is that PE would be equivalent to whatever level 50K EQMs now maps to and that's PG. Could you construct a justification that PE maps to another level - sure. But said justification will be more complex and, I fear, much less defensible in a court. Had the new UA defined PG as 35K and PP as 65K I think it would have been a very different situation. But to me it really does look like the simplest interpretation of all this is that they simply created a new naming system for what they had. All this said I wish MMers well in getting improved benefits and if that also results in me getting my RPUs each year I certainly won't complain. I just have a hard time intellectually with the arguments put forth thus far.
before, Premier Executive
- 2 regional upgrade certs and up to 8 total based on how many miles you fly in each quarter.
- 100% mileage bonus
- Second tier for upgrades behind 1K (GS is not a MP program so leaving out)
after, Premier Gold
- 50% mileage bonus
- Third tier behind 1K and Platinum
after, Premier Platinum
- 75% mileage bonus
- RPU's (don't know how many get or when)
- Second tier behind 1K
after, 1K
- 100% mileage bonus
yes, I know there are more but was just consolidating to the basic differences between what benefits PE got before and the current levels needed to get those same benefits. So as you can see to get the same benefits a PE got before you would need to be at least Platinum and would need to be 1K to get the same mileage bonus. And UA promised the benefits of Premier Executive so any way you look at it, benefits wise, Platinum would be the closest and would still be falling short of promised benefits. Not to mention the promised 3 systemwides when you cross 1MM.
Sep 7, 2013, 11:59 am
#1743
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago
Programs: AA EXP, UA former 1K (1.9MM and gone), Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Diamond, SPG Plat
Posts: 1,111
Thanks - I find the back and forth with you much more gratifying and challenging than with many who are more "emotional rant" oriented.
I don't accept the premise that PE maps to PG because UA claims it does. I could certainly accept that it could be mapped to PP or to nothing. What I do believe is that if you are to construct an argument independent of what UA says for what PE should map to you will have a harder time making the argument for other than PG. For any of the US airline programs the tiers are defined by a number of qualifying miles flown. That is the criteria that gets you a given level. Having gotten the level you then get benefits - and said benefits are known to change some over time even while the qualifying number of miles doesn't. I think it is agreed that for recent history (decade or more) PE was defined as the level associated with 50K PQMs. For me, then the simplest argument is that PE would be equivalent to whatever level 50K EQMs now maps to and that's PG. Could you construct a justification that PE maps to another level - sure. But said justification will be more complex and, I fear, much less defensible in a court. Had the new UA defined PG as 35K and PP as 65K I think it would have been a very different situation. But to me it really does look like the simplest interpretation of all this is that they simply created a new naming system for what they had. All this said I wish MMers well in getting improved benefits and if that also results in me getting my RPUs each year I certainly won't complain. I just have a hard time intellectually with the arguments put forth thus far.
I don't accept the premise that PE maps to PG because UA claims it does. I could certainly accept that it could be mapped to PP or to nothing. What I do believe is that if you are to construct an argument independent of what UA says for what PE should map to you will have a harder time making the argument for other than PG. For any of the US airline programs the tiers are defined by a number of qualifying miles flown. That is the criteria that gets you a given level. Having gotten the level you then get benefits - and said benefits are known to change some over time even while the qualifying number of miles doesn't. I think it is agreed that for recent history (decade or more) PE was defined as the level associated with 50K PQMs. For me, then the simplest argument is that PE would be equivalent to whatever level 50K EQMs now maps to and that's PG. Could you construct a justification that PE maps to another level - sure. But said justification will be more complex and, I fear, much less defensible in a court. Had the new UA defined PG as 35K and PP as 65K I think it would have been a very different situation. But to me it really does look like the simplest interpretation of all this is that they simply created a new naming system for what they had. All this said I wish MMers well in getting improved benefits and if that also results in me getting my RPUs each year I certainly won't complain. I just have a hard time intellectually with the arguments put forth thus far.
IEs were specifically promised Gold, which happened to be the top level at the time. Then they were upgraded to Platinum and again recently to 1K. Gold has continued to exist the entire time and, I believe, has consistently for decades required 50k miles to qualify.
Therefore, why use a different interpretation for one group than they've previously used for another?
Sep 7, 2013, 12:05 pm
#1744
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS MVPG100K, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,490
Could you please remind me how many miles a customer has to fly in order to gain membership in UA's Global Services Program?
Last edited by Fredd; Sep 7, 2013 at 12:24 pm Reason: tipo
Sep 7, 2013, 3:05 pm
#1746
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS MVPG100K, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,490
Sep 7, 2013, 5:48 pm
#1747
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: ASE
Programs: UA 1P MM, SPG Gold, HH Gold
Posts: 45
Out of curiosity, do you see any merit in an argument that CO/UA has set a precedent with their treatment of Infinite Elites?
IEs were specifically promised Gold, which happened to be the top level at the time. Then they were upgraded to Platinum and again recently to 1K. Gold has continued to exist the entire time and, I believe, has consistently for decades required 50k miles to qualify.
Therefore, why use a different interpretation for one group than they've previously used for another?
IEs were specifically promised Gold, which happened to be the top level at the time. Then they were upgraded to Platinum and again recently to 1K. Gold has continued to exist the entire time and, I believe, has consistently for decades required 50k miles to qualify.
Therefore, why use a different interpretation for one group than they've previously used for another?
Sep 7, 2013, 8:31 pm
#1748
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA Plt, AS G, MR Ti, IC
Posts: 633
It does seem like there is an argument for PMUA Million Miler to be offered at least Platinum for life, since Premier Executive maps closer to what Platinum is now, and PMCO customers (Infinite Elite) ended up with 1K in the end. Legally, I'm sure their lawyers have given them alot of wiggle room, or at least alot of billable hours; ethically, living up to promises and fair treatment of all their customers is it.
Sep 7, 2013, 8:40 pm
#1749
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 38,654
It does seem like there is an argument for PMUA Million Miler to be offered at least Platinum for life, since Premier Executive maps closer to what Platinum is now, and PMCO customers (Infinite Elite) ended up with 1K in the end. Legally, I'm sure their lawyers have given them alot of wiggle room, or at least alot of billable hours; ethically, living up to promises and fair treatment of all their customers is it.
Sep 7, 2013, 9:59 pm
#1750
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,172
Sep 8, 2013, 5:20 am
#1751
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,432
al and it really makes little difference in the number actual of GS members.
Sep 8, 2013, 7:20 am
#1753
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,172
I bet you that any lifetime GS probably have a lot of non-flight miles wrapped up in that 4MM
Sep 8, 2013, 8:47 am
#1754
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago
Programs: AA EXP, UA former 1K (1.9MM and gone), Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Diamond, SPG Plat
Posts: 1,111
Agreed there aren't many who are going to get it - but at the same time, GS is all about being a secret unpublished tier based on revenue. Offering it lifetime based on miles IMO is a major disconnect.
I bet you that any lifetime GS probably have a lot of non-flight miles wrapped up in that 4MM
I bet you that any lifetime GS probably have a lot of non-flight miles wrapped up in that 4MM
Meanwhile many people like me (with 1.6 million BIS and the expectation of lifetime RCC in a few more years) were leap-frogged by hoards of flyers and their spouses who were lucky enough to be based near Houston or Newark plus a bunch of others whose previous flying patterns just happened to include flights eligible for the one-time adjustment. It would have taken no more effort to devise a more fair system, but that was clearly not their intention.
Sep 8, 2013, 9:00 am
#1755
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,172
I viewed this as just another way to reward the pmCO crowd, who had an inflated mileage-earning system as compared to the strict UA-metal BIS at pmUA. Rather than give them what they might have expected based on the old rules (Silver at 1MM, Gold at 2MM, Platinum at 3MM, and now 1K at 4MM), Smisek chose to bump his core constituency up an extra level at each tier for no good business reason IMO.
Meanwhile many people like me (with 1.6 million BIS and the expectation of lifetime RCC in a few more years) were leap-frogged by hoards of flyers and their spouses who were lucky enough to be based near Houston or Newark plus a bunch of others whose previous flying patterns just happened to include flights eligible for the one-time adjustment. It would have taken no more effort to devise a more fair system, but that was clearly not their intention.
Meanwhile many people like me (with 1.6 million BIS and the expectation of lifetime RCC in a few more years) were leap-frogged by hoards of flyers and their spouses who were lucky enough to be based near Houston or Newark plus a bunch of others whose previous flying patterns just happened to include flights eligible for the one-time adjustment. It would have taken no more effort to devise a more fair system, but that was clearly not their intention.
That being said, I still think it was silly to offer lifetime GS. Lifetime 1K was already a new addition to the program.